Wheel Clamping

John Spellar: First, may I say that it is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr. Speaker? May you long stay there, as a reminder that in this country the Speaker is chosen not by an attempted coup from the Press Gallery, but by the Members of the House of Commons.
	My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that since 1992 wheel clamping has been banned in Scotland, yet in the midlands and the rest of England cowboy clampers still inflict outrageous penalties on motorists. Will she give civil servants clear instructions to put a stop to that outrage, not in 2009 but this year?

Meg Hillier: I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate him on the tenacity and vigour with which he has pursued the issue for a number of years. Scotland has a different legal jurisdiction, under which theft is defined differently, which is why such activity is illegal there.
	Fees are supposed to be reasonable, and that anyone who is clamped can raise the matter, because the individual clamper will be registered and licensed by the Security Industry Authority. There is recourse while we take the time to ensure that we get a proper, proportionate response.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is well aware that the Government are committed to community support officers. Does she share my concerns that there are seven absent or vacant posts for PCSOs in Chorley, leaving the Clayton area very vulnerable to crime, as that is the worst community support officer reduction that has taken place so far? Will she speak to the chief constable to seek to ensure that those vacancies do not remain open?

Michael Howard: Later this week, the European court of human rights is expected to rule on whose DNA is to be permitted to remain on the United Kingdom's database. Does the Home Secretary agree that decisions of this kind should be made not by unelected foreign judges, however distinguished, but by elected Members of this Parliament? Regardless of the merits of the argument on that particular question, what representations is she making to the court to increase what it calls its margin of appreciation so that fewer decisions of this kind are made in Strasbourg and more in this House?

David Taylor: In our country, there are organisations that promote bad behaviour and drug abuse, such as the Bullingdon dining club at Oxford, which is famous for hard drinking, bad behaviour and drug abuse and is also responsible for the decline and fall of many of its members. Will the Home Secretary say whether there is any indication over a 20-year period that the use of cannabis in clubs like the Bullingdon dining club is any higher or lower or about the same as it was when the Leader of the Opposition was an active member of that club in 1988?

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

David Heathcoat-Amory: The European Scrutiny Committee received a report on EU development last year, in which one of the Secretary of State's predecessors commented:
	"one cannot easily determine what goals have been set and what progress has been made in achieving these".
	Does the Secretary of State not think that it might have been better had the treaty concentrated on reforming the acknowledged deficiencies in the existing programme, rather than giving more powers and money to the European development programme?

Douglas Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend. In July, I had the opportunity to visit El Fasher in northern Darfur, where I saw the work being done by, among others, the European Commission. In Bangladesh, the cyclone Sidr effects were mitigated by support provided by the European Union. Thus in fragile or conflict-affected states the European Union has a role to play. It can often complement the work being done by member states.

Jo Swinson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. Today is the start of fair trade fortnight. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that trade is in many ways more important than aid for developing countries, so what steps are our Government taking to try to remove some of the protectionism within Europe, which prevents many developing countries from making fair trade agreements with the UK and our EU partners?

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, To leave out from 'House' to end and to insert instead thereof:
	"disapproves of the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of international development because the Treaty does nothing to improve the efficiency of European Union aid, increases the influence of the EU's foreign policy over its humanitarian aid and development assistance, decreases the freedom of member states to react to international crises, diverts resources to a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, downgrades the least developed countries, is ambiguous about competence on international development, and overall is a step backwards in the provision of aid to the developing world.".
	Today's debate on international development provisions in the treaty is welcome, and I hope that the Secretary of State will join in the consensus—embraced by his predecessor, among others—that we should have more debates on international development in the House. It is a subject of huge interest to our constituents, and it is vital at this time. International development deserves a much higher profile in this place.
	I welcome the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), to his new post. One of the most satisfying aspects of international development policy is that it is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal subject, but a British policy and a British agenda. Perhaps, like me, the hon. Gentleman will see it as his role to try to keep the Secretary of State and his Ministers up to the mark in successfully pursuing our common objectives, which our generation has a real chance of achieving.
	We welcome much of what the Secretary of State said today, particularly his comments towards the end of his speech about climate change. We Conservative Members have argued for some time that the issue for Europe is tackling the three great challenges of our age: global poverty, global warming and global competitiveness. Many of the European Union's policies—on trade, migration, sanctions and foreign policy—have profound impacts on international development.
	Europe experiences at first hand the impact of poverty. Every year, thousands of young men and women—often bright, hard-working motivated people, sometimes the cream of Africa—risk their lives seeking to make the perilous crossing from Senegal and Libya to the Canaries, Malta or Italy in search of a better life. They place themselves in the hands of the modern equivalent of the slave trade. Any attempt to deal with the migration challenge that the EU faces must have an international development aspect.
	The EU is one of the world's biggest donors. It provides 57 per cent. of the world's official development assistance, which amounted to some €45.3 billion in 2005. About a sixth of that—€7.5 billion—was managed by the European Commission. That aid went to approximately 160 countries, territories or organisations. The Commission has about 3,500 aid and development staff. There is no doubt that the EU is a major player in international development; that is why it is so disappointing that the treaty bypasses many issues that are literally vital to billions of poor people around the world.
	The treaty misses the opportunity to support open markets and to significantly rejuvenate the EU's aid programme, which, despite recent improvements, is still underperforming. One of the Secretary of State's distinguished predecessors, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), whose contribution is greatly underrated, but not by Conservative Members, branded the European Union's aid
	"an outrage and a disgrace".
	She said that EU aid is
	"skewed quite dreadfully against the poorest countries",
	and that
	"You can't keep throwing money and people into an inefficient organisation".
	There have been improvements since then, but we should face facts: British aid, on the whole, is much better than that spent through the EU. It is better managed, more focused on tackling poverty, and more decentralised.
	Many things need to be done urgently to improve the quality of European Union aid. The treaty of Lisbon touches on some of them. We welcome the legally enshrined emphasis on poverty eradication, but the treaty ignores many issues, which I shall mention later. It is on those key issues that the Government need to focus.

Tony Baldry: Before my hon. Friend does so, does he agree that it is curious that, listening to the Secretary of State, one would think that this was a treaty of perfection? Over the days in which we have debated the Lisbon treaty, the Government have sought to pray in aid the support of a number of non-governmental organisations. Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motions 990, 1011 and 1012, which express the concerns of Oxfam, Save the Children and Action Aid, and use the words, "concern", "caveats", "omission" and "reservations"? The Secretary of State did not make reference to any of that: it was as if NGOs' concerns simply did not exist.

Andrew Mitchell: I will certainly not withdraw them.
	It is therefore particularly embarrassing for the Government that many of the substantial points of the Lisbon treaty which we are discussing today were opposed by the British Government while they were being negotiated.
	I turn to five of those points. The first involves the new articles that set up qualified majority voting on urgent macro-financial and humanitarian aid. Although that ostensibly seems a benign change and is cited by the Government as an uncontroversial example of a move to QMV, it could raise important questions. To take a real example from the recent past, it might have been used to decide whether the European Union should continue to fund the Palestinian Authority after the 2006 elections, which returned Hamas to power. The UK and some other member states disagreed about that; the UK was keen to fund only non-governmental organisations, not the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. Far from being uncontroversial, the point was rightly opposed by the Government in negotiations. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) argued that
	"Macro-financial assistance has been agreed urgently when required",
	and that moving to QMV was therefore unnecessary. The Government are now fighting for a treaty that they themselves believe to contain elements that are damaging to the interests of some of the poorest people in the world. I hope that they will support the amendments that we have tabled to address the issue.
	The second point is the treaty's provision for the creation of a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps. That is a deeply questionable idea. The Secretary of State will know that, in general, my party is enthusiastic about the role that volunteers from developed and developing countries can play in international development; they help make a valuable contribution in poor countries, and—equally importantly—learn about the issues and become advocates for change.
	Many Members will be aware of the work done by Voluntary Service Overseas, an outstanding British charity with which my party worked closely last year in Rwanda. Volunteering can be a positive experience. However, when it comes to urgent humanitarian assistance, we must recognise that there is a limit to what volunteers, however enthusiastic and well intentioned, can do. The Government agree with me; in negotiations on the constitution on that point, the right hon. Member for Neath said:
	"The idea of establishing a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps should have no place within the EU's humanitarian action".
	His wise judgment has been backed up by NGOs and BOND, which say:
	"We oppose the creation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps".
	They go on to argue that
	"Humanitarian response is for experienced, trained professionals, not for volunteers, especially in dangerous crises."
	They warn that a voluntary aid corps might not be guided by the highly important principles and commitments of professional aid workers.
	A few years ago, that sentiment was echoed by Poul Nielson, then European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid. On 7 November 2003, he said:
	"Humanitarian aid should be the 'business' of experienced, trained professionals such as NGOs and international organisations. It should not be delegated to a voluntary humanitarian aid corps, no matter how enthusiastic."
	He added that
	"humanitarian aid is carried out in emergency contexts, wars, natural disasters, huge displacements of people, and in these contexts, know-how, experience and fool-proof reactions are essential as dangerous and traumatising situations are too often the rule."
	The Secretary of State will note that we have tabled an amendment on that point. I hope that he will feel able to support it; we are merely reflecting the views of the Government during the negotiations.

William Cash: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Many of us present are extremely keen to ensure that poverty is eradicated and have individually and collectively done as much as possible to try to make that case. However, the legal frameworks that are created for the common commercial policy, for example, and its connection to the External Action Service and all the rest that goes with it, creates a dynamic that can positively prevent the very objectives that the Government have set themselves in relation to the millennium goals, because the European Union probably will not be able to achieve them.

Andrew Mitchell: Those countries do not need a treaty in order to fulfil what they promised to poor countries in front of the world's media.
	We are concerned that the Lisbon treaty removes the reference to "the most disadvantaged" developing countries as a focus of the EU development co-operation policy. It is right that the EU should, to some extent, play to its comparative advantage of assistance to near-Europe countries. They are, after all, the most proximate markets for the European Union, and we have a strong interest in their growth and development. However, we must ensure that the focus is on reducing poverty. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), will know that I am a keen student of his speeches. One of my personal favourites is his speech entitled "Multilateral aid and the European Union's contribution to meeting the Millennium Development Goals", which he will remember he delivered on 24 February 2005, and in which he said:
	"EC aid is still not sufficiently focused on meeting the millennium development goals...Europe spends nearly $100 in aid for every poor person living in the Mediterranean—and less than $1 for every poor person in Asia, which is, alongside Africa, the key 'battleground' for the achievement of the millennium development goals. Why is a child in Egypt worth 100 times more than a child in Bangladesh?"
	That is a well-made point with which Conservative Members have much sympathy. The OECD is in agreement, saying that
	"the Commission should look for opportunities to increase assistance to low income countries."
	I hope that the Minister will continue to fight to ensure that the European Union focuses its aid on the people who really need it. I know from his words that he will want to support our amendment, as it seeks to retain the reference to "the most disadvantaged" as a target for European aid.
	A fourth key concern about the treaty is that development may be relegated to second-tier status within the EU's external action framework—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. I know that that is a concern echoed by many officials in DFID. DFID's multilateral development effectiveness summary of 2007 noted that
	"Community aid...sits in the middle of the Union's wider external policy aims, with sometimes competing agendas".
	Furthermore, the respected OECD development assistance committee has found a risk that the ambitious multiple objectives of the consensus, including expanded political ones, could diffuse a focus on development and undermine longer term strategic priorities. Members will note that we have tabled amendments on that point. It is surely inconceivable that Ministers will not support them, especially when the Government were, not so long ago, so very keen to ensure that the specific identity of development objectives was not undermined in the EU's external action. We want to ensure that development retains a strong profile within the EU's external action programme.
	We are strongly supportive of an independent DFID. Why, then, do the Government support a treaty that seeks to move Europe the other way, subsuming development within the common external action programme? There is also an important point about leadership. Many observers are concerned that a reduction in the number of commissioners could mean that there would be no commissioner for development. BOND has made it clear that having a separate commissioner for development is highly important, particularly in closing the gap between EU development policy and its implementation. BOND has said:
	"We must ensure that there is a strong and independent voice for development."
	However, the principle of independence is missing from the treaty's section on humanitarian aid.
	Fifthly, the Minister will note that we have tabled an amendment addressing the question of shared competency over matters of international development. We seek clarification from the Secretary of State on what that will mean. We hope that he will be able to reassure us that there is no danger of the EU's overruling Britain's decisions on aid policy.
	More generally, the treaty fails to address the many things that must be done to reform and improve the delivery of European Union aid. Such aid has been criticised for involving heavy bureaucracy and slow disbursal. In its oral evidence to the July 2006 House of Lords report on EU-Africa relations, BOND castigated the EU's record of
	"slow disbursement of funds, bureaucratic procedures and lack of capacity",
	which all
	"continue to hinder the effectiveness of European Community aid".
	A report by DFID suggested that delays were due to
	"the inner workings of a byzantine bureaucracy with a procedure-driven ethos."
	Ironically, a study by the Commission found that 40 per cent. of delays to aid projects were the result of the administrative processes of the European Union, while only 25 per cent. were due to administrative problems in the developing countries receiving aid. A survey of aid recipient countries by Oxfam suggests that a fifth of EU aid arrives more than a year late, compared with just 3 per cent. of that from other aid donors.
	The highly respected think-tank Open Europe has highlighted that one particularly wasteful administrative activity is the EU's funding of other multilateral institutions, particularly the World Bank's International Development Association. Over the past four years, the EU has passed on $2.1 billion of its budget to other multilateral organisations. That means a wasteful chain of transfers: national agencies administer a transfer to the EU, which then administers a transfer to another multilateral organisation, which then eventually administers aid to the recipient country, with administrative costs and delay at each stage. There are also serious concerns about fraud and waste in the European aid programme. Open Europe explains that just over 7 per cent. of the EU budget is spent on overseas aid, while aid programmes account for 21 per cent. of fraud investigations by OLAF, the European anti-fraud office. Fraud in this area is far higher than the Brussels average.
	Despite attempts at reform, serious cases of fraud and waste are still coming to light. For example, in 2006, a report by the EU's Court of Auditors found that aid for Russia had been misspent. It noted that one project had involved inventing a region on paper to meet the criteria for receiving EU funds, and fitness equipment that was supposed to help children ended up being used by Russian soldiers. I have read with great interest the multilateral development effectiveness summaries that have been posted recently on the DFID website. There is a lack of clarity about exactly how DFID assesses which multilateral agencies do the best job of tackling poverty. What we really need is much stronger impact evaluation of global aid so that we can make informed decisions about which channels will spend our aid most effectively.
	The treaty calls for coherence in EU policies that affect poor countries. At the moment, there is manifestly a lack of coherence. There is a clear need to take action on that. In particular, the treaty fails to underline the importance of development assistance in tackling physical and psychological barriers to trade in poor countries. That is one of the most important aspects of all development. If our aid money is not to be wasted, poor countries must ultimately be able to trade their way out of poverty. Aid is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Andrew Mitchell: I acknowledge that many have argued passionately for the reform of the rules of origin. My point is that nothing in the treaty gives us any courage or hope that that might take place.
	Disappointingly, the EU's trade policies remain manifestly unfair. The "Everything but Arms" scheme is woefully far from fulfilling its potential and many have argued that it is even having negative effects. The EU's direct export subsidies entrench impoverishment in developing countries and drain European taxpayer's pockets. I hope that the Secretary of State will join me during Fairtrade fortnight in calling for the EU to listen to its citizens and make earnest reform of its trade policy.

Hugh Bayley: One of the Labour Government's great achievements has been to make poverty alleviation the primary goal of our international development policy. We have won widespread public support for that policy and now even the Conservative party endorses it. It was not always so.
	In the dogdays of the Conservative Government, I introduced an overseas development and co-operation amendment Bill, which sought to make poverty alleviation the primary purpose of British aid. Perhaps unsurprisingly, under the Conservative Government, it never reached the statute book. It is worth remembering the state of British development policy at that time.
	During the 1992-97 Parliament, aid contributions fell as a proportion of Britain's gross domestic product. Given that all parties now support focusing on poverty as the primary purpose of aid, it is significant that, during that time, the percentage of British aid to poor countries fell from 80 to 69 per cent. Aid to India fell by 23 per cent., whereas aid to Indonesia, which at that time had a per capita gross domestic product three times that of India, increased by 79 per cent. Singapore and Hong Kong then had a per capita gross domestic product higher than that of the United Kingdom, nevertheless they received more aid per person than Vietnam, one of the poorest countries in Asia.
	I congratulate the Conservative party on catching up. Conservative Members, who now say that they support relieving poverty as a primary goal for British aid, tonight have the opportunity to show that they mean it. By supporting the Lisbon treaty, they will require the European Union to adopt a similar policy to the British Government's.
	The treaty states:
	"The Union's development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty."
	If Conservative Members genuinely believe what they have been telling the House for the past year or two—that it is important for Britain and the European Union to make poverty alleviation the primary purpose of aid—they should support the treaty. We will watch tonight to see whether they do that.

Hugh Bayley: I share with the hon. Gentleman a firm belief that reducing corruption in developing countries would greatly help them to develop economically. He and I have both introduced measures in the House to change the law to help achieve that aim. Nothing whatever in the treaty would undermine that kind of legislation on a national or Europe-wide basis, but the treaty does contain something that might help it happen, which is the provision requiring greater policy coherence. The treaty stipulates that
	"The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries."
	That is a signal to the Union that it ought to have coherent policy across the piece. I would like that to include Europe-wide action to criminalise transnational bribery and to ensure that cases of it are brought before the courts.
	This is not just an academic debate about whether we like the European Union or not. EU aid is immensely important in the fight against global poverty. In 2006, the European Union's own aid budget was about US$10 billion—roughly one tenth of all global aid. A quarter of all the UK's aid—about £1.2 billion of the total for 2006 of £4.2 billion—is channelled through the European Union. I fundamentally disagree with the Conservative party's proposal that our EU aid should be repatriated to the United Kingdom. If we did that, it would send a signal to many other countries with far less a commitment to aid that they could withdraw their contributions to the European Union, with the result that less aid could end up going to developing countries. There is a measure of agreement in the House that EU aid needs further reform, but we would be less likely to achieve that reform if we were to take our bat and ball home and repatriate our resources.
	The International Development Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in the last Parliament and since, has long taken the view that European Union aid should be guided by the same poverty alleviation principles as are required for UK aid under British law. In 2001-02, the Committee produced a report on European Union development assistance, in which it called for such a commitment to poverty alleviation. In 2006-07, the Committee produced a further report, which acknowledged that some progress had been made. However, it also stated:
	"We strongly welcome DFID's advocacy of an increased focus by the Commission on poverty reduction in low-income countries. The European Council, however, now needs to make good on the commitments it made in the 2005 Consensus on Development to prioritise aid to the poorest countries, and to Africa in particular. We recommend that the Government look at all options available, including withholding funds, to encourage the European Union member states to agree parameters for Commission development activity that allow a dramatic increase in aid going to those who need it."
	That policy is infinitely more likely to become a reality if we have a treaty requiring the European Union to make poverty alleviation one of the primary focuses of its aid policy. We shall see, when Members vote tonight, whether the Conservatives attach greater priority to poverty alleviation as treaty-required aid policy than to their own policy of scepticism and isolation, which would reduce the ability of the United Kingdom to steer European Union aid policy in the direction of poverty alleviation.
	In its examination of development policy in the European Union, the International Development Committee also focuses on other policies, including trade, the common agricultural policy and—I see that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is leaving the Chamber—the policy on combating international bribery. The European Union is a big player, internationally, and it is extremely important to achieve policy coherence. I quoted earlier the treaty provision which requires that. I see that the hon. Gentleman left the Chamber only for an instant, and that he is now back in his place.
	Some Conservative Members have expressed concern about areas in which there is no EU policy coherence; the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) did so earlier. Most notably, he mentioned the common agricultural policy, but I am sure that he would agree that that applies to other areas as well. Is he really willing to give up a treaty requirement on the EU to improve policy coherence to defend the interests of developing countries? If he votes for his amendment tonight, he will give up the opportunity to achieve the sort of policy coherence for which he has just argued from the Dispatch Box. That would be weird, wonderful and bizarre, so I hope that he and other Conservative Members will reflect before they vote tonight. If they are genuine in what they say about supporting our Labour Government's priority on poverty alleviation and the priority that we have given to international development, voting for their amendment tonight would show that their commitment to those objectives is lukewarm and that their commitment to isolationism in Europe is what really fires them up. That is the conclusion that I draw and I believe many people in this country would draw it, too.

Michael Moore: It is a real pleasure and privilege to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). As he has reminded the House and demonstrated, he has a long and proud track record on this particular policy area and has rightly put the key principles of the treaty at the heart of this afternoon's debate.
	I also thank the shadow Secretary of State for his generous welcome to me. I was particularly pleased with his suggestion of consensus and I am certainly happy to do my bit to continue it across the House. I have to say, however, that a large chunk of his speech reminded me of many other debates on European affairs over the years where, as with other aspects of our debate over this particular treaty, there is very little consensus. It was nice to hear the familiar tones of what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I regret that, for reasons that I shall advance as my speech progresses, we will not be able to support his amendment this evening. In particular, we cannot accept the assertion that the treaty is a step backwards in the provision of aid to the developing world. I know, however, that there will be many other areas of agreement and I look forward to further debates.
	In the context of globalisation, Europe faces many difficult, shared challenges, which I believe are fundamentally best responded to on a co-ordinated basis. In the face of the growing pace and sustained nature of those challenges, the Lisbon treaty has to reform Europe's institutions to make them more open, more efficient and effective. We have already debated key areas of consideration in the Bill where that is necessary, but that reform is also crucial to international development.
	Providing development assistance to the millions of people less fortunate than we are is first and foremost a moral and ethical imperative. It is nearly eight years since the UN adopted the millennium development goals, and those ambitious targets have framed the international community's work on development since then. But more than half way towards our 2015 target, the most recent UN assessment shows that we are a long way from meeting our goals.
	Regardless of Europe's current institutional arrangements, we believe that there are important roles that Europe must play in the delivery of those goals.

Michael Moore: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but may I pay tribute to him on the expertise that he has shown in this subject over many years? It is clear that poverty alleviation is now central to the treaty, but we will need to keep an eye on how the institutional arrangements are developed. I am sure that a part of that will be to ensure that there is adequate and proper focus on international development in the high representative's new arrangements. It might be more straightforward to convince me on that than the hon. Gentleman; I believe that that is a perfectly appropriate way for things to develop.
	Beyond the treaty and the institutional arrangements, we must ensure that the EU pursues the right development policies. A number of people have raised the issue of the economic partnership agreements, and the case can be made that the EU has not excelled itself in their negotiation. Now that the interim trade agreements have been initialled, the EU must honestly negotiate the comprehensive deals and honour the promises made to revisit provisions of the interim agreements.
	As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) remarked, as we start fair trade fortnight it is right that we celebrate the huge progress made on this issue over many years, particularly in the past few. Significant announcements have been made by Tate and Lyle about the future of its UK sugar sales and significant increases have been made in the amount of fair trade produce available in British supermarkets and elsewhere.
	On trade policy more broadly, seven years on, the Doha development round remains stubbornly unresolved. At this year's Davos summit, the World Trade Organisation's director general, Pascal Lamy, shared his optimism that an agreement can be reached this year, but we have heard such statements before. The Doha round seems to be in danger of becoming part of some interminable groundhog day. If it is to be anything but that, the EU must be willing to drive forward an agreement that is genuinely in the interests of the developing world, based on a radical reduction of subsidies and tariffs and on improvements on market access.
	In addition, we must keep the pressure on to ensure that environmental sustainability is a key millennium development goal. The agreement reached at Bali has the potential to address many of the developing world's particular concerns about climate change, and we must all move quickly on technology transfer and adaptation. The EU must also ensure that Bali is only the beginning of a more comprehensive process. As the main player in establishing the Kyoto protocol, the EU must remain at the forefront of securing a successor agreement. It must learn from the experience of Kyoto and use all the tools at its disposal to ensure that the US and others come on board.
	The test of our development policies will be judged in places as diverse as Kosovo, Gaza, Darfur and Sierra Leone. Under a new framework, the EU must ensure the following: a sharp focus on humanitarian assistance; proper policy coherence for development; a continued emphasis on the effective distribution of higher volumes of aid; and better aid implementation and management. Under the Lisbon treaty, it can, and must, make real progress in all those areas.

Judy Mallaber: I had better move on to the substance of the debate.
	I welcome the changes embodied in the treaty because they embed principles of concern to us that are starting to be set out, particularly on poverty eradication. It must be possible for us to work better collectively to ensure that our efforts on aid and all development issues are progressed. Such an approach would be better than countries' sometimes operating individually and not necessarily always co-ordinating. The more co-ordination to make our efforts count, the better. Various figures have been cited showing that the EU is responsible for between 55 and 77 per cent. of world development aid, and I am sure there is no disagreement in the Chamber about the fact that we must take measures to ensure that aid and assistance are given as effectively as possible.
	As has been said, we have done well and the EU has made a major contribution to push forward the agenda. Reference has been made to the commitments that we achieved on the millennium development goals and at Gleneagles on extending aid to Africa. Those commitments are important and we need to build on them. The Opposition have made much of saying that the EU is ineffective and that its delivery does not work. Many examples have been given, but they are not an argument that we should not embed proper principles in the EU's work—the issue is how we make that work operate more effectively, not that we should not go ahead with the treaty, which embeds the principles that we want.
	There has been evidence of improvement in EU policies and their promotion. Every four years, the OECD development assistance committee undertakes a peer review, and its conclusions were different from the rather gloomy picture that we have been given so far. The review commended both the role of the Commission in reshaping development co-operation and the progress made since the previous review four years ago.
	Major independent development policy think-tanks such as the Overseas Development Institute are calling for more development aid to be channelled through Europe. There are clearly different interpretations of what happens, but it appears that progress has been made, so it is essential that we build on it. It is important that we continue to restate the principles that will be embedded in the treaty if it is carried: for example, that the primary objective of development policy is the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty; that humanitarian aid is recognised as a fully fledged Union policy; that the EU's development co-operation policy and the policies of individual member states reinforce each other; that we should be working towards that end; and that development policies should operate independent of political stance. It is vital that we maintain that independence and that we promote all those principles.
	I have seen positive work carried out by the EU. Children from one of the poorer villages in my constituency have been to Burkina Faso, one of the most deprived countries in Africa, to help to dig a well. They have raised money for schools and projects in the country. It was exciting for them to be able to participate in even a minor part of that work. The EU has financed the construction of more than 900 classrooms and more than 300 primary schools and the establishment of canteens in the country's three poorest regions. That is extremely important work.
	The International Development Secretary set out what has been done by the EU and our country to promote democracy and advance in a terribly troubled country—the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I saw that work at close hand when, with other members of the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention, I visited the country to monitor the elections last year. It was a humbling experience and I can testify at first hand how extraordinary it was to see the work being done by the EU and MONUC—the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Soldiers were making sure that the elections were fair, and they transported thousands of tonnes of ballot papers. It was an extraordinary experience to see at close hand so many people taking part in a peaceful registration process and election in an area of such conflict. The EU, DFID and our officials in the country are greatly to be commended for their work.
	Pride can be taken in that achievement; the country is still extremely troubled and progress is difficult, but there is no doubt that the situation is now different. The latest estimate is that in the period of civil war, more than 4.5 million people died as a result of starvation or poverty, or directly from conflict and violence. Interestingly, the last study that was done—I have met its authors, who produced it by analysing what people knew of deaths in different periods—showed some evidence that in the east, the most troubled area, the number of deaths had started to fall. That might have changed again recently, but the fall in the number of deaths presumably occurred because more effort and assistance had been put into that area since the worst of the conflict than into areas that were not so troubled. There is thus hope for the aid process, but there are clearly an amazing number of areas in which a huge amount of work remains to be done.
	Taking the DRC as an example of a country in which the EU should and does play a major role, one of the key issues is the reform of the security sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) pointed out that we want to maintain the independence of the policy aims of our development work, but that work necessarily correlates with work on security, military intervention and protection in conflict zones. Security sector reform is, and will continue to be, a critical issue in the DRC, and the European Union deserves praise for the creation of EUSEC—the EU security sector reform mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I hope that Ministers will ensure, as far as they can, that we maintain the work of EUSEC and do not start withdrawing it in the coming period, when it will continue to be important to work on security sector reform and to maintain a presence in the DRC. Such action will be critical; without it, we might be prevented from ensuring that our development efforts have an impact on the dreadful problems that that country faces, which we need to deal with.
	The EU has also played an important role directly in security in the DRC through the role of EUFOR and the troops that we have there, which helped the MONUC forces to secure the 2006 elections; the work of the EU's special envoy to the great lakes; and the significant role played in the recent Goma peace accords. The EU's role is important and must continue to be important. I want a treaty that embeds further the principles that we want to adopt and makes that work more effective, not one that states that we will withdraw our co-operation.
	Structural reform is important, and points have been made about the possible shortcomings. Although there will be fewer commissioners in the EU, I hope that we can keep one with direct responsibility for development. I hope that we will pursue that as a Government.
	We had an interesting debate earlier about British Overseas NGOs for Development, and we can all cite different quotations from it. The secretary of our all-party group spoke to BOND earlier today to establish its position. As I understand it, it says that it is not its job to take a position on the treaty itself or on issues such as a referendum. It states that it
	"strongly welcomes the proposed legal framework for development policy with poverty eradication at its heart, and the legally enshrined principle of the coherence of EU policies with development objectives."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) pointed out what it had said about now being the opportunity to improve the treaty and the development and legal framework. BOND goes on to say that its issue is not with anything in the treaty, but about how its principles will be translated into practice. Any failings in EU policy should mean not that we tear up the good proposals and changes in the treaty, but that we consider how to operate them in practice. Arguments that the EU does not always work properly are not arguments against the treaty as such.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my second point, which is that of course enlargement has natural limitations. We can count the number of countries that we know could fit comfortably in the European Union. Of course, enlargement must happen at a pace that the whole enterprise can cope with, but it is membership and the journey towards membership that brings the benefits. My thesis is that when the EU starts to undertake a different kind of development—external development—it does not do it very well. That triggers a debate on whether it should do it at all, in the way that it is trying to do it, or whether external development is better left to member states or other agencies. If I have time, I hope to develop those thoughts.
	Putting aside the great success of enlargement, my observation is that the performance of EU development over the past decade or two has been woeful. We have considered statistics on the performance of the EU. In the three years in which I shadowed the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), then Secretary of State for International Development, there were a number of international humanitarian crises and disasters. On every single occasion, the aid that DFID was able to provide was immediate, proportionate, relevant and helpful, but the assistance that I saw ECHO try to provide was nearly always far too late, was bureaucratic, did not work or did not arrive. There was a huge gap between the assistance that the UK could provide in a humanitarian crisis, and what the EU was able to deliver.
	I do not want to taunt Labour Members, but we used to say that they did not understand the difference between spending money and making an impact on the ground. I am sure that they would deny that that is the case now, if it ever was—Members might have their own observations to make on the subject—but there is a huge difference between the EU spending money on development, aid and assistance and making an impact on the ground. Having visited various parts of the world, I have not seen the impact that the combined dollar spend and the euro spend by the EU should have made. We have heard that the focus is on the wrong countries, and that can be demonstrated with a startling statistic: 81 per cent. of the UK aid budget goes to the lowest-income countries, as we heard earlier, but the proportion of the EU institutions' budget that does so is 32 per cent.
	It is not just that the EU has spent money in the wrong places, but that, as I said, it has tended to spend money slowly and bureaucratically. A number of international NGOs are desperate for finance for projects, and often come to us to discuss those things. Someone may suggest, "Why not apply to the EU for some money?", and the reaction is nearly always: "It's just too complicated. It's too long-winded, we never get there, and it's just not worth it." Interestingly, DFID looked into what was going wrong with EU aid some years ago, and it found out that some of the delays were due to
	"the inner workings of a Byzantine bureaucracy with a procedure-driven ethos."
	A study by the European Commission itself found that 40 per cent. of delays to aid projects were due to
	"the administrative processes of the EU".
	Only 25 per cent. were due to administrative problems in the developing countries that received the aid.
	Some 35 per cent. of aid from all other donors arrived on time, but for the EU, the figure was a miserable 14 per cent. On average, 3 per cent. of aid from all other donors arrived over a year late, but the EU has managed over the past 10 years to hit a staggering figure of 21 per cent. What is the point of DFID giving the EU £1 billion a year if it helps to fund such a bureaucratic, slow and unfocused performance? That is not the only problem. DFID has reported that it spends 5 per cent. of its total budget on administration. The EU has various development budgets and departments—we know that it is complicated—and it has a much larger budget, so the percentage spend on administration should be lower, but in fact, the administrative cost is 8.7 per cent., which is a huge amount of money.
	EU aid is not effective in far too many cases, and it is right to conclude that EU development aid and the institutions that seek to deliver it are often not fit for purpose. That is not to say that everything they do is bad or wrong, but the disadvantages and disbenefits outweigh the benefits. What is the solution? I am not an isolationist—I do not want us to withdraw from active involvement in the European Union—but there is a case for one of two alternatives. It is disappointing that in the run-up to the Lisbon treaty those alternatives were not more actively pursued by the Government. First, there is a case for bringing more of the spend back to the member states so that we can spend it more effectively. We should not spend it on other things, but we can spend it more effectively on bilateral aid, where needed, around the world. The fact that some countries do not have much of a bilateral aid programme does not undermine the general thesis that the United Kingdom and many other countries, including Germany and France, have significant bilateral aid programmes, and the money would be better spent that way than by pushing it through the EU's coffers, where much of it is wasted and misplaced.
	The first point that should have been more actively discussed in the run-up to the Lisbon treaty is that member states should have more control of the way in which that money is spent. Secondly, the Government should consider the fact that the US spends most of its aid money through USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—which is independent. If I am right that the EU institutions and aid departments are not fit for purpose, what is wrong with the prospect of setting up a new EU international aid agency? It should be semi-detached, not lost in the corridors of that astonishing bureaucracy in Brussels, and it should operate as something through with the EU can channel its aid. It would be a multilateral effort, but it would be done in a more effective and focused way.
	I know that the Minister is concerned about some of the EU's decisions on its development budget, so will he say in his winding-up speech how much longer the Government will wait for the EU to improve its performance before taking a more radical approach? The Prime Minister made an important speech in India just before Christmas—it may have been just after Christmas; I am not entirely sure—in which he discussed the importance in the globalising world of the 21st century of multilateral organisations. I agree with him. We are living in a time of interdependence and globalisation, and we need to tackle some of our problems in collaboration with other states and multilateral organisations. He mentioned in particular the UN, the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank. Interestingly, he did not mention the EU. The problem with the multilateral approach is that it works only if those organisations are properly organised and deliver what they intend to deliver. My theory is that the EU does not do so, so it is time for a rethink.
	Finally, the aid agenda is changing rapidly, and rightly so. If one goes to almost any African country and asks people what is the biggest problem in their country, they hardly ever say that it is poverty—they say it is corruption, which at every level is endemic to those societies. There is corruption in government, and corruption throughout civil society. We need to focus more on the democratic capacity of institutions in those countries, and bring to them values and benefits that we enjoy in this country and take for granted. Our aid and development focus should underpin and promote such values in every country that is open to receiving that message. The UK can play an important role by working to develop democratic institutions, whether through the rule of law or by helping political parties to become stronger and make a more coherent case for running their country more appropriately. The work by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and party-to-party work are incredibly important. I remember attending a conference on democracy in Istanbul about two years ago, and the NGOs and some of the bureaucrats assumed that one could do democracy without politicians. We cannot: we need people who are prepared to put their head above the parapet.
	The EU is not well placed to promote democratic values. It certainly cannot promote party politics and underpin the important role that parties and politicians play in the developing world. If I am right that we need a greater focus, not a lesser one, on governance and democratic issues, the EU is not the institution to provide such a focus. It should let the member states spend that money more wisely, or set up a new agency that can do so effectively.

Colin Burgon: In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that eliminating global poverty was one of the greatest challenges facing the world, and nobody could possibly argue with that. We should look not just at the principles to which people say they are committed, including the eradication of poverty, which no one in the House would oppose, but at how they are carried out in practice. That is the true test of any institution or organisation. We view Europe either as a utopia which represents the most perfect mechanism ever constructed by man or woman, or as an empire or evil. Of course it is neither, but those are the themes that run through the debate.
	We should look at how the philosophy and the principles of the European Union as they relate to aid and trade are implemented. At its root, Europe's approach to trade and aid is incoherent. The treaty states that it aims to improve the coherence of wider EU policies with development objectives and poverty eradication. Who can argue with that? However, in the articles on trade policy, the treaty's apparent favouring of a liberalisation approach over other objectives risks enshrining incoherence at the heart of the treaty. We must examine that.
	My view of the current trend in the EU is probably not the majority view in the House, but we should encourage minority viewpoints at all times. I would argue that the EU Commission is perhaps—the Minister may wish to disagree—the most powerful neo-liberal force in the various world trade organisations which do much to shape the world and the lives of its people. In the most recent world trade talks, it adopted key demands made by corporate pressure groups such as the European Services Forum to force open services markets in poorer countries to multinational companies.
	Despite massive opposition from developing countries, the EC and the ESF got almost everything they wanted into the services text of the Hong Kong World Trade Organisation ministerial decision, which increased pressure on poor countries to open up their markets for basic services such as water, health care and education. Previous episodes of liberalisation in these sectors restricted poor people's access to those essentials.
	The world is dotted with examples of that. It was the EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, our former comrade, who said:
	"We want to liberalise trade and grow markets in which to sell European goods and services. Multilateral negotiations"—
	in the WTO—
	"offer the biggest prize in achieving this."
	So EU trade policy makers generally share with the massive number of corporate lobbyists who hang about in Brussels the belief that promoting business interests by opening up markets in developing countries will automatically generate economic growth and reduce poverty. Accordingly, Governments actively encourage the corporate sector to help formulate trade policies. As one senior Brussels-based business lobbyist says:
	"There is a broad political consensus. We share a common interest."
	The assumption that trade liberalisation will automatically lead to economic growth and cut poverty in developing countries has become the received wisdom. It was openly stated by our good friend, Trade Commissioner Mandelson, most recently in an article in  The Observer on Sunday 2 February. That argument is advanced despite little convincing empirical evidence that trade liberalisation is associated with subsequent economic growth, and strong evidence that it can have extremely destructive impacts on poorer economies and the lives of poor people there.
	A report from the Commission for Africa, which was set up by Tony Blair, concluded:
	"Forcing poor countries to liberalise through trade agreements is the wrong approach to achieving growth and poverty reduction in Africa and elsewhere."
	The economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the godfathers of free trade theory, were also against rapid trade liberalisation. After a quarter of a century of experimenting with trade liberalisation, poor countries remain locked in a poverty trap, and rich countries continue to push developing countries to liberalise trade through global institutions such as the WTO. The EU plays a key role in that process.
	The Lisbon treaty makes international trade an exclusive competence of the EU and includes foreign direct trade in a common commercial policy. It reduces the power of the member states over trade. Article 188 of the new treaty retains a special committee of officials from EU member states which is currently known as the article 133 committee. The House will be pleased to hear that I shall not elaborate on that, as I covered it extensively in a previous debate.
	Economic partnership agreements are the instruments through which the neo-liberal policy of Commissioner Mandelson is pursued. To his credit, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), has expressed reservations about the effect of economic policy agreements. A briefing from the Trade Justice Movement explains what those agreements mean, and it is worth putting that on the record. I shall highlight three elements.
	First, EPAs require countries to liberalise tariffs on the vast majority of products, with exclusions only in exceptional cases. That would open up markets in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to the EU's subsidised agricultural products and more competitive manufactured products, undermining the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and the promotion of value-added production. Secondly, EPAs introduce new regulations on services, competition and Government procurement that would make it extremely difficult for ACP countries to support local companies, create new jobs and grow their economies. Thirdly, EPAs introduce stricter rules on intellectual property that would make it more difficult to access and afford educational materials on the internet.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman takes me neatly to the second of my four points. Everyone who has spoken has rightly said that the treaty refers to pro-poor policies; actually, it would be staggering if it did not. However, the treaty has an inherent contradiction, in that it removes reference to "the most disadvantaged". As it happens, a very substantial proportion of EU development aid goes to middle-income countries, many in what is euphemistically known as the Maghreb. That is not a development policy, but a policy through which countries such as Spain, Greece and others—understandably, within their own terms of reference—try to improve the situation in middle-income countries such as Egypt, Morocco and others in north Africa in the hope that that will prevent more migrants from coming from those countries to mainland Europe. That policy is not one of development. I suggest that the removal of the reference to "the most disadvantaged" will mean that more money will be given to middle-income countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made exactly that point in an effective speech a couple of years ago—far too much money is being given to middle-income countries. So why were the Government content about that phrase being removed?
	The treaty provides for the creation of a voluntary humanitarian aid corps. That, too, was opposed by the Government in negotiations. It is the sort of thing that sounds like a good idea, but when one gets down to the practicalities—how it is to be funded, how it is to be supervised, where it is to go, and in what circumstances it will operate—it is clear that it will be a distraction from the work of some already very professional NGOs or will give Governments who should be committing resources for humanitarian intervention an excuse to say, "Well, we will just fund the voluntary humanitarian aid corps." Whatever the position, we know that the Government opposed that during the negotiations, and no explanation has been given today as to why that was the case and why Ministers are now happy to sign up to a voluntary humanitarian aid corps.
	The treaty provides for an extension of qualified majority voting to urgent macro financial and humanitarian aid, which removes the UK's veto on these matters. Again, the Government opposed that in negotiations. There must have been some good reason why they opposed what is clearly a reasonably technical provision. People at UKRep, DFID and the Foreign Office must have felt that there had been occasions in the past when they would have been in difficulties if the provision had prevailed and they could foresee situations in future when they would be in similar difficulties. Why on earth was that not discussed or explained to the House?
	We have had no explanation on any of the issues where the Government sought to oppose the treaty of Lisbon in the negotiations in which the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and others were involved. Ministers have not come to the Dispatch Box to say, for example, "We opposed the voluntary humanitarian aid corps in negotiations on the treaty but we got the following assurances, undertakings and promises, so we now feel that we can sign up." What we got from the Secretary of State today was a thoughtful, elegant "motherhood and apple pie" speech about why international development is good for us. We all know that international development is good for us—we are not here to debate that but to debate how the treaty of Lisbon affects our relationship with the European Union as regards international development. However, we have not had that debate.

William Cash: I agree, as a matter of fact.
	The problem is that this is an issue of enormous importance. I do not want to give the impression, any more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells does, that the Conservatives are not genuinely interested in the developing world and third-world problems. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is now in the Chamber, knows that I, and other Conservative Back-Bench Members, dedicate a great deal of our time to trying to deal with these questions.
	The Secretary of State was kind enough to refer to my work on the all-party group on water and sanitation in the third world, of which I have the honour to be chairman. An early-day motion on that subject was signed by 250 Members of Parliament, while 310 supported my early-day motion on the reduction of third-world debt. Why? There is all-party recognition that the subject is incredibly important. It is utterly unacceptable that people should die needlessly in developing countries. It is appalling and disgraceful that a child dies every 15 seconds for lack of proper water. That is unacceptable, and it is essential that the Opposition, as well as the Government and the Liberal Democrats, should fight to ensure that we have policies that work.
	Against that background, I am deeply worried about the manner in which the EU functions on aid. Irrespective of our belief that help and the eradication of poverty should remain at the heart of our policy making, the EU is not the mechanism for achieving that. All the evidence points in the other direction. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells eloquently express the fact that the documents that he elicited were left blank. We know that the European Court of Auditors has issued a number of reports over an extended period to demonstrate that the way in which EU aid is delivered is not good enough.
	We know that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), when she was Secretary of State for International Development, was deeply critical of the way in which the EU functioned in relation to her responsibilities. I do not believe that what she said at that time had anything to do with the Iraq war. It was just an objective assessment of how she saw the operation being conducted under the aegis of the EU.
	Why would I be concerned about the specific obligations imposed under the treaty? For example, as I said in an earlier intervention, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells mentioned, the fact that the treaty arrangements provide for exclusive competence in this field is a retrograde step. Exclusive competence, for those who have the faintest idea about the EU—not for those who pretend that they do not know, allow these processes to continue and then pretend that our Parliament and our Government have some residual ability in to legislate—means that states cannot legislate in that field. It means that the ability of this House and its better means of delivering the objectives that we all seem to share—with the proviso that we, for our part, would like to exclude exclusive competence, as the Government intended—are contracted out.
	I wish that some Members of this House would be honest enough to realise that they are effectively conning the British people when they pretend that they are improving the lot of people in the third world, when this exclusive competence will mean that we will no longer be able to make provision to help the people whom we all agree need help.

William Cash: I agree. It is pretty extraordinary to hear the Government advocating a policy—we certainly are not advocating it—of more EU competence in this field. That is because—it is necessary to be blunt and direct about such matters, even if at times that is controversial and unpopular—some of the countries that are part of the EU have the most appalling record of behaviour in African countries. I would like to know, for example, whether the involvement of Belgium in Congo would be regarded as one of the great aspects of humanitarian aid and help to the people of Africa during the 19th century.
	I do not think that we are without blemish but I will say emphatically that we created and helped a lot of those countries through education, infrastructure and development over an extended period, including in the old colonial territories. That work far exceeds anything that President Mugabe has done for his country. He has brought the whole edifice of Zimbabwe to its knees. I believe that the EU will not be able to provide the opportunities and facilities that will genuinely help the countries that need it most.
	Africa is approaching a crisis. There are serious difficulties in South Africa and serious problems with AIDS. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), with whom I have worked closely over an extended period, the difficulties of eradicating poverty are made 1,000 times worse by the inability to deal with the problems of corruption. They cannot be separated.
	The Court of Auditors has often rejected the way in which the European accounts have been operating. Nothing in its reports suggests that it should have an exclusive competence over handling international aid in Africa. It is not best placed to secure proper anti-corruption policies such as those advocated in the Bill that I proposed last year, or many of the Department's recommendations, which, on the whole, pointed in the right direction. I do not agree with everything that the Department has done and I do not believe that it has gone nearly far enough, but we have an absolute responsibility to bring forth the problems of transparency and accountability in our debates. I am not convinced that the European Union will do anything to improve the position.
	The treaty does not refer to corruption. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, it contains much motherhood and apple pie, but there is no evidence that it will deal with the seriously ingrained problem of corruption, which is endemic in much of the third world. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers because the aid money paid to the European Union through tax mechanisms, and thereby from the European Union to the developing world, is our taxpayers' money. We must ensure that it is used properly.
	My hon. Friends and I are determined to improve the lot of people who live in appalling conditions. The way in which some people in the third world live is a form of modern slavery. It is inconceivable to us, sitting in the House of Commons, that people should live on such limited resources. That is mostly unnecessary and happens because there is no proper control. I strongly condemn the idea of transferring more and more functions to the European Union when we have a track record and our Government have tried, albeit not entirely successfully, to tackle those matters. I had a great deal of time for the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), the Secretary of State's predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He worked incredibly hard and was truly dedicated. I say the same of the Under-Secretary, because I know that he wants to make things better. I simply do not believe that the European Union is the right way to go.
	Leaving aside questions of aid and development, the infrastructure in developing countries can be improved only if they have the finances and resources to achieve that, as well as the expertise that goes alongside. The way in which the whole operation is currently conducted, including the enormous debts that those countries have been encouraged to incur and the amount of interest that they have had repay, simply has not left them with enough money to invest in infrastructure. There is a new 1980s and 1990s generation of people in Africa and the rest of the third world who understand the problems that their countries face. They want genuine improvements, and I believe that the answer lies in proper free trading arrangements. I am appalled by the failure of the Doha round. The customs union and the way in which protectionism operates in Europe are detrimental to the third world, and I strongly believe that the powers should be repatriated.

Mike Hancock: I have more than a little sympathy for the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who tried to deal with the chapters in the treaty that we hoped to discuss this afternoon. Chapter 3 on humanitarian aid and the previous two pages spell out many of the issues that have been mentioned. He was right to say that no one who has participated in the debate has any doubts about the House's commitment to development, to helping eradicate poverty, to developing, when possible, initiatives that relate to aid and to ensuring that we get better value for money.
	However, there are some serious questions about the chapter on humanitarian aid. I intervened earlier to mention a recent visit that the Under-Secretary made to Bangladesh, followed by a visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and me a few days later. We visited what are undoubtedly some of the poorest parts of the world. I pay tribute to the Department's work there and I cannot give it more praise than to say that it is a credit to our nation. The European Union could do worse than taking some lessons from the Department about the way in which it operates.
	The Secretary of State spoke in his opening remarks about his visit to Sierra Leone and his journey through Freetown, where he saw many signs, which showed who was working there. He said that he wanted to see fewer—I pay tribute to the proper English of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who put us all right earlier—signs but greater co-ordination. Many hon. Members who have spoken are experts and know that, when travelling around, one witnesses the failure of co-ordination in many countries. I am at a loss to find anything in chapter 3 to suggest that things will be better co-ordinated.
	I am with hon. Members who are worried about corruption and the amount of it that affects European aid. I have witnessed European work on numerous occasions in many parts of the world, including Kosova. Anyone who believes that European aid in Kosova has not been corrupted has not seen the real Kosova. Tens of millions of pounds have been misappropriated in Kosova over the years and it is a travesty to suggest that that has not happened.
	I want the Government to assure the House that the treaty will not seriously impede the legitimate aims of the House and our country of following the same pattern of humanitarian aid that we have followed in the past 40 years. I want the Government to assure us that we remain committed to supporting those countries that have traditionally been the UK's allies and looked to us for a lead. I want to be sure that that commitment will not be diluted and I want the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretaries to give us a full-blooded commitment that the treaty and the suggested amendments to it will not do the opposite of what everyone who has spoken wishes. I wanted the way in which the treaty can be of greater benefit to the humanitarian needs of the world to be spelled out line by line.

Ann McKechin: I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for his courtesy. I also apologise to the House for my unavoidable absence for part of the debate.
	It is fair to say that this debate has been characterised by an argument about bilateralism versus multilateralism. I would like to argue the case for a multilateral approach. The European Union has a unique strength, given its ability to look at the full range of issues that impinge on development, not only in its direct humanitarian work, but in promoting European values, such as human rights, equality, democracy and freedom. The European Union has the ability to look not only at aid, but at trade, foreign affairs and security, all of which, most of us would agree, have a major impact on development. That is why I particularly welcome the formal recognition in the new treaty that the primary objective of EU development policy should be the reduction and eradication of poverty in the context of the millennium development goals.
	In many parts of the world, the formal distinctions between security, foreign and development policy are increasingly no longer relevant. When we interact with fragile states, the ability to offer a comprehensive range of interlinked policies becomes even more crucial. In the periods immediately after conflict, which we are witnessing in countries such as Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it is all the more important that we should act together. A good example of that is the European Union's security sector reform programme, which is operating in the DRC and Burundi. Indeed, the EU is the only meaningful body promoting such co-ordination and is the source of one of the very few effective security sector reforms in the entire region, which includes a mechanism to ensure soldiers' pay.
	Questions have been raised recently about Belgium's agreement of a military aid package with the DRC Government, but purely on a bilateral basis. That should be a cause for concern. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that it is of the utmost importance that all EU members should work within the EU security reform processes to ensure that the difficult issues of conflict and corruption in the DRC can be tackled in the most effective way.
	Although there have undoubtedly been problems with European programmes in the past, the biggest structural problem that faces the global aid community today is that the aid structure is running out of control. In the 1960s, most poor nations had an average of about 12 bilateral or multilateral donors. Now the average is 33. In just one year Tanzania, for example, had to receive more than 540 separate aid donor missions. Uganda has more than 40 donors and 684 different aid instruments, while St. Vincent, with a population of 117,000, was asked to monitor 191 indicators on HIV/AIDS alone. The list goes on, but only a quarter of global aid currently comes through multilateral bodies such as the EU. Despite the ever increasing number of donors, however, programmable aid has largely stagnated since 2002. We simply cannot go on in this manner, with such huge levels of bureaucracy holding least developed countries down, in their attempt to achieve the millennium development goals.
	If we agree that aids budget throughout Europe should increase to the target of 0.07 per cent. of gross domestic product, we need to do more to achieve effective harmonisation and alignment of aid policies. We simply cannot ignore the European Union's role, and we cannot even more ridiculously call for it to do less or for all the money to be transferred into our bilateral programme. The EU is the world's largest donor—more than 55 per cent. of world aid comes from Europe—and its influence will grow as new accession states start to form their own development capacities. We therefore have a global presence that we can work with, and the only logical approach is to work for appropriate reform and to achieve a high level of policy alignment.
	I welcome the fact that the treaty accepts that, for the first time, humanitarian aid is to be allocated only on the basis of need, without consideration of the recipients' origins or beliefs. It also states that non-aid policies should do no harm and, wherever possible, should support progress towards development goals. Particularly importantly in relation to trade—given that the treaty states that the principles of the commercial policy of the EU are based firmly on trade liberalisation, and makes no specific mention of the need for that to be linked to a pro-development focus—I would argue that we should treat the no-harm principle for non-aid policies as a minimum, and not as the limit of our ambitions for European development.
	Our experience in the European Union with the World Trade Organisation negotiations and the economic partnership agreements shows that it is vital to preserve and strengthen a development focus in our trade work. I would contrast the position here in the UK—where the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform shares my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) with the Department for International Development as a development Minister, and where we have a long-standing policy on the adverse effect of failing to sequence trade liberalisation reforms to allow domestic capacity to grow—with that of the European Union, which has often fallen back on protectionist arguments. That is why I would argue that the UK should be pressing heavily, as part of the Lisbon treaty, for a separate Development Commissioner who has equal status to that of the Trade Commissioner and that of the new high representative on foreign affairs.
	If we were to take a no-harm approach—and nothing more—in trade policy, we might limit the possibilities of further meaningful reform. The present round of economic partnership agreements, for example, has failed to reduce or eliminate export subsidies. I also agree with other hon. Members that we need to lift access not only to the least developed countries but to all African countries. Whether we are talking about Kenya or Zambia, agricultural access to the European Union is vital to their economies, and we should now start to give that access without exception.
	Another example is that the European Union does not currently control the import of timber known to have been illegally logged, despite the fact that the WWF estimates that the EU is responsible for around €3 billion-worth of illegal timber trading a year. Such exports fuel conflict in areas such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and also have a devastating impact on global carbon emissions. That is a perfect example of the need for the European Union to act to co-ordinate policy in member states. A pro-development agenda in all parts of the policy making machine in Europe should recognise the value of such changes.
	I also hope that the new administrative structure will ensure that we can act together in important spheres, particularly in regard to taking forward the Paris declaration on aid co-ordination and alignment within Europe. With 27 states, the risk of a growing topsy-turvy jumble of aid programmes is all too high, which is why political priority and momentum must be put into pressing the case for greater, not less, collaboration. If possible, we should clearly separate the neighbourhood countries programmes from those funding streams with a stronger poverty-reduction focus, including the work of EuropeAid.
	The present artificial split of nations between the Development Commissioner and the External Relations Director needs to end. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, as well as Asia and Latin America, should be brought together under a new, strengthened Development Commission portfolio. The message of today in the Lisbon treaty is that acting together, in co-operation, should mean better aid, and a better chance of reaching the millennium development goals.

Mark Lancaster: I am not going to give way, because we are very short of time, and it would be unfair on the Minister if he had no time to speak.
	Crucially, with the removal of the reference to the most disadvantaged, the revised treaty will shift the EU's priorities away from the least developed countries. In our view, that marks a step backwards in the provision of aid and support for the developing world.
	I shall start, however, with the positives. Compared with other aspects of the treaty, it is fortunate that there is at least some consensus across the House on the subject of humanitarian development, as has been demonstrated by the contributions today. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made a passionate speech about poverty alleviation, the principles of which are, I am sure, shared across the House. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, however, for saying that the only flaw in his argument was his assertion that we needed a treaty to deliver that aim, or indeed any other of the aims highlighted by hon. Members—a point underlined, perhaps inadvertently, in the earlier intervention of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) made an informed first contribution in his new role on the Front Bench and, having said that he felt unable to support our amendment, he proceeded to support many of our concerns on the nature of the treaty. He might not thank me for reminding him that he even managed to find a degree of consensus with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
	The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) made a thoughtful speech, arguing for the need for better co-ordination and greater efficiency in the delivery of aid. I agree with those points wholeheartedly, but she failed to outline which elements of the treaty would help to deliver those goals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) made an excellent speech, based on a long-standing interest in aid and development—an interest underlined by the fact that it is now nearly 10 years since I first met him in Pristina, when I was Captain Lancaster and he was the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. He also rightly highlighted the concerns about the effectiveness of the delivery of EU aid, a point to which I will return shortly.
	The hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) made an interesting speech, in which he focused on trade liberalisation. I confess, however, that I was slightly surprised at his attack on his own former Minister, now the EU Trade Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson. I feel that it would be tactful to allow the Under-Secretary of State for International Development to adjudicate on this particular internal Labour dispute.
	As we have come to expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made an incisive speech that went to the heart of the issues that we are debating, namely, the fact that the Government are being forced to defend some of the very issues that they opposed during the negotiations. I shall return to that point in a moment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) highlighted the shortcomings of the EU in delivering aid, and outlined his concerns about the politicisation of aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone has a long-standing interest in these matters, and it shone through tonight in a passionate contribution that highlighted many of the shortcomings of the treaty.
	The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke with considerable experience, and echoed earlier speakers' concerns that there was little in the treaty that would improve efficiency in the delivery of aid. The hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) spoke with passion about the role of multilaterals in development. I hope that she will forgive me, however, if I do not quite share her confidence in the EU as a means to deliver those goals.
	There are, as hon. Members have highlighted in their speeches, many areas of concern with the treaty. Indeed, in his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) highlighted no fewer than five areas in which the Government sought amendments during the negotiations. Those concerns were expressed to my hon. Friend during his meetings with the Presidents of Sierra Leone and Ghana last week. I am sure that my hon. Friend is flattered that the Secretary of State seems to be following in his footsteps around the world at the moment.
	In the brief time that I have remaining, I want to focus on just two of those concerns. The first is the impact of the provisions for shared competency on the effectiveness of the delivery of aid; the second is the politicisation of aid. As has been said, the EU is one of the major players in the development world, directly attributable for 57 per cent. of the world's official development assistance, and literally making the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. The fact remains, however, that the European Union and many of its member states are not good at delivering aid and development.
	Reference has been made to the description by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) of EC aid as an "outrage and a disgrace" during her time as Secretary of State for International Development. Positive steps have been taken since then, and the present Secretary of State rightly alluded to them in his speech, but those steps have been too little and too slow, and the EU still has a long way to go before it can truly be considered as an effective deliverer of aid. To be fair, this is something that the Commission itself recognised when it accepted that 40 per cent. of delays to aid projects were the result of the administrative processes of the EU. NGOs agree.
	A survey by Oxfam found, that about a fifth of EU aid arrives more than a year late—something I experienced first hand and, I must say, with great frustration, during my own time delivering development in Afghanistan—but apart from the poor distribution of aid, the EU also suffers from fraud within its aid programme, which accounts for 21 per cent. of all fraud investigations conducted by the European anti-fraud office.
	While there is always room for improvement, the Department for International Development by contrast is generally well regarded as a deliverer of aid—perhaps the Secretary of State should sit up with pride at this moment. A report from the Canadian Government said of DFID:
	"Today it is generally considered to be the best in the World."
	 The Economist said that DFID was
	"a model for other rich countries".
	It is a source of pride for this House that DFID is clearly seen by many as a world leader, while EU aid is widely viewed as inefficient, fraudulent, directionless and governed by an over-bureaucratic mechanism.
	Conservative Members are therefore concerned that the Government seem determined to support a treaty that may, through the proposed entrenching of shared competence, undermine DFID's role and make it more impotent in the international development arena through effectively limiting what it can and cannot do. Let me be specific. Article 118(d) of the treaty states that EU and national policy in this area shall
	"complement and reinforce each other".
	More worrying is Article 214(6), which says;
	"The Commission may take any useful initiative to promote coordination between actions of the Union and of the Member States."
	What exactly does that mean—that DFID aid and development programmes must reinforce those of the EU and that the EU can overrule Britain's decisions on aid policy? Perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate, he will explain exactly how, given the relative efficiency of the UK compared to the EU in delivering aid, such a course of action would be in the interests of Britain, and perhaps even more importantly, in the interests of the developing world.
	Another principal concern of Conservative Members is the treaty's politicisation of aid and the Minister will be aware that we have tabled amendments on this issue—as, indeed, did the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who seemed rightly to share our concerns, during the treaty negotiations. Presumably he, like us, believed that for true development to occur in some of the harshest environments in the world, long-term development plans need to be effectively implemented and regularly scrutinised. Our concern is that that will not be allowed to happen while aid is used as a diplomatic tool by the EU and its high representative.
	To be clear, article 214 says:
	"The Union's operations in the field of humanitarian aid shall be conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the external action of the Union".
	Other articles are similar, but all highlight that humanitarian aid and development shall be subsumed under the principles of the EU External Action Service—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. But what are those principles? The Secretary of State outlined some of the principles covered by article 224 in his opening remarks, but the role of the European External Action Service is outlined in article 13 and at no point is humanitarian aid mentioned. Why not?
	Let me be clear that in the view of many, including NGOs, that amounts to a clear politicisation of aid, which flies in the face of everything that previous Labour Governments have stood for. On four separate occasions in 1947,1964, 1974 and 1997, the Labour Party moved the role of overseas development away from the Foreign Office—on each occasion to resist the politicisation of aid—so why the sudden change of heart? Why, after 50 years of doing the opposite and having opposed it in the treaty negotiations, are the Government now suddenly supporting the move to subsume the EU's humanitarian aid into the EEAS?
	The proposals do nothing to improve the efficiency of EU aid; what they do is represent a retrograde move towards the politicisation of aid, marking a further nail in the coffin for the freedom of action for member states. We want the EU to work in partnership with DFID, not to dictate to it. These treaty provisions are a move in the wrong direction—for Britain, for the EU and for developing nations. Crucially, as previous debates have highlighted, the Government are once again going back on their word, supporting bureaucracy over democracy by denying the people the referendum they deserve.

Gareth Thomas: This has been an interesting debate, and it is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster). I join the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) in welcoming the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who now leads for the Liberal Democrats on international development. I also echo the hon. Gentleman's point that one of the most powerful examples of EU and EC at its best was the commitment to achieving the 0.7 per cent. UN target, agreed and endorsed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in May 2005—a very strong example of Europe's convening power.
	I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield included one powerful point—the section where he quoted at length the full force and wisdom of a speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). However, I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, given the intemperate language that he used throughout much of his speech, that he might usefully reflect on the article written by Caroline Jackson, a Conservative MEP, in the  Financial Times last week. She said:
	"The time warp of the party's European attitudes"—
	she was talking about the Conservative party—
	"has... damaging effects... it means that the right-wing 'nasty' and dogmatic aspects of the party—so off-putting to voters from 1997 to 2005—are still alive."
	Earlier in the article, she noted that
	"the Conservative leadership is now even prepared to see its MEPs sit among the 'non-attached members' at the back of the parliament—a public admission of isolation and a poor position from which to operate in a parliament with increased powers."
	I must correct one particularly intemperate charge that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made—that the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office colleagues had effectively misrepresented the position of NGOs on this issue. Perhaps just one quote from my right hon. Friend's speech on Second Reading should clarify matters, as he said:
	"One World Action, Action Aid and Oxfam have announced their support for the measures on development co-operation".—[ Official Report, 21 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1241.]
	He specifically mentioned development co-operation; nothing more than that.
	I acknowledge that there are some genuine reasons to be worried about the performance of EC aid, and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) raised some of those concerns. I pay tribute to the leadership of each successive Secretary of State for International Development over the last 10 years in championing reform and seeking to sort out what was a fragmented, outdated and incoherent organisational set-up, which, needless to say, resulted in long delays. However, I say gently to Conservative Members that we should perhaps not be surprised at just how poor EC performance on aid was, given just how bad the UK's own record on development was before 1997.
	Let me provide three examples which stand out. In 1985, India bought helicopters from the UK after Margaret Thatcher bullied Rajiv Gandhi into ignoring the advice of his aviation experts who were against the sale. That money came out of Britain's aid budget and it was given to India on condition that it bought those helicopters. In 1991, we saw £234 million of British aid being used to finance the Pergau dam project in the hope of securing future arms deals from Malaysia—completely and utterly illegal and hugely damaging to Britain's reputation in development. Then, what about the huge decline in British aid that took place under the Conservatives? Given such a dismal record when the Conservatives were in government in comparison to our own development spending, is it at all surprising that they should have completely ignored the need to reform EC aid?
	Yet a series of such reforms have been championed and supported by every Secretary of State, seeking not just to improve the general functioning of the EC but to reform the way in which the EC delivers its aid. Those reforms include the clear strategic priorities for EC development aid, so we now have a clear EU development policy, the European consensus on development—drafted, in large part, in Britain and taken through during our presidency with the primary and overarching objective of poverty eradication and the achievement of the millennium development goals.
	We have seen radical improvements in management performance and the establishment of a new EU implementation agency. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) spoke about the need for such an agency, but there is one already in place—EuropeAid. We also have an effective multi-year planning system that sets out clear strategies, clear budgets and the expected results. In addition, financial administrative control mechanisms have been simplified, helping to speed up still further the delivery of aid on the ground where it matters. There has also been substantial decentralisation, helping to get EC aid decisions down to the local level, thereby seeking to improve the quality of aid and speeding up the disbursement of money.
	Opposition Members who have backed evaluation and monitoring, and the independence of evaluators, will surely welcome the independent evaluation of EC aid. Those reforms, championed by Labour Secretaries of State, have been delivered over the last 10 years. Such has been the progress that the OECD, in its review of EC development co-operation— [Interruption.]

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend, as is his wont, makes an apposite point. In the British Cabinet, there is a Secretary of State for International Development and a Foreign Secretary, but in a slimmed-down Commission it looks as though there will be a Foreign Minister—by another name—but probably not a Commissioner for development. However, perhaps when the Minister replies he can reassure us that there will still be two posts. We certainly want to hear the Government's view and their answer to the question that my hon. Friend was entirely right to raise.
	BOND also pointed out that as well as the possibility that the EU's development budget could be put under that of the Foreign Minister, there is the possibility that development aid could be left without its own Commissioner. As we know, the Lisbon treaty will reduce the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18, but like much of the treaty the details of which portfolios will be in the charge of the remaining Commissioners will be known only after the treaty is ratified—a point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State. A leaked document from the EU Slovenian presidency also made that point clear, so I shall press the Minister on whether he can guarantee that EU development aid will have its own Commissioner, in the Commission, after Lisbon is ratified. A yes or no will do.
	In the absence of such reassurance on that point, BOND has said:
	"What is at stake is the future political space for development within a new institutional structure...This would not only blur the division of powers between the institutions but it would also allow development policy to be at the disposal of the High Representative."
	The Lisbon treaty could therefore have a damaging effect on international aid. In practice, it could lead to the further concentration of EU aid on the EU's near neighbours and political priorities. Already, three of the top five recipients of the Commission's aid are middle-income countries—Serbia-Montenegro, Turkey and Morocco—that lie within the EU's immediate neighbourhood. Countries with the lowest incomes are notable by their absence, with only the Congo and Afghanistan making the top five. The Committee will realise that there are special reasons in the case of Afghanistan. With the Lisbon treaty, we can expect the EU's political aims to be further prioritised over those of the least developed countries. That may have led to the words "developing countries" specifically being omitted from the treaty's objectives for financial and technical co-operation, a deficit that we would remedy with amendment No. 273.
	A lot of competing quotations from BOND were cited during the previous debate. The Government prayed it in aid, and Conservative Members rightly pointed out some of its concerns. Let me put on record something that BOND said on the treaty as a whole:
	"BOND and its member organisations do not have a position on whether or not the EU reform treaty is adopted, or whether or not there should be a referendum."
	On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary was keen to give the House the impression—I choose my words carefully—that there was considerable support for the treaty among the NGO community in this field. Bearing in mind that BOND represents a collection of important NGOs, I think that the Foreign Secretary over-egged his case, to put it mildly. That is why it was important that I had the opportunity, which I have been pleased to take, to read that point into the record.
	I shall conclude my remarks so that other hon. Members may speak. Amendment No. 245 is designed to remedy one of the treaty's major defects on international aid. It would make the EU's aid budget independent from its foreign policy and allow it to be used to the best advantage of the least developed countries in particular. Specifically, it would take responsibility for EU development aid away from the EU Foreign Minister and remove the risk of the EU's aid budget being diverted to the furtherance of the EU's foreign policy. Amendment No. 273 would allow financial and technical co-operation to be targeted to developing countries.
	Given the dangers that I have outlined, I ask the Minister to give the Committee two specific assurances. First, if Lisbon is ratified, will the EU have its own development commissioner, independent of the Foreign Minister—yes or no? Secondly, if Lisbon is ratified, will development officials working in the External Action Service be responsible to that development commissioner, if we have one? If we do not, will they report directly to the EU Foreign Minister? I hope that the Minister will attempt to answer those two clear questions, not least because we must consider whether to press the amendment to a Division.

James Clappison: That is exactly the problem that amendment No. 245 confronts. Are we talking about aid given purely on the basis of development criteria—how poor a country is, its position with regard to human development and various measures of relative poverty—or aid given as part of a wider objective relating to political and strategic considerations? The amendment is very apt in that context. Having heard the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about the impact of the new high representative, the European External Action Service and the reinforced European common foreign and security policy, I think that they might come together to make the existing situation worse.
	In saying that, I do not draw a veil over the existing problems of EU aid policy, which are long-standing and widely recognised. European Union development co-operation and aid have stretched back as far as the EU itself, certainly throughout the 25-year history of the Lomé convention. The EU has provided a significant proportion of world aid throughout its history. However, has the money that has been spent by European Union institutions—as opposed to money from individual states—been well used? There is often a sense that the European Union's relatively wealthy nations are trying to compensate developing nations for the effects that EU policies have had on them.
	An academic study by Karin Arts and Anna Dickson concluded that over the long term, the European Union's policy on development has fallen short, saying that
	"the sum effect is the creation of an ineffective, and perhaps symbolic, development policy. That is to say, ineffective in the realm of producing, encouraging or facilitating development, although effective in creating the image of an actor engaged with the world's poor."
	That is absolutely relevant to my hon. Friend's amendment. Are we going to have an EU policy in which the EU is an actor going through the motions with other objectives in mind, or an EU aid policy that delivers aid to the poorest people?
	Various views were attributed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) during our earlier debate. She put it succinctly when she said that the European Commission was
	"the worst development agency in the world".
	Her successor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), to whom hon. Members have rightly paid tribute for his sincere convictions on this subject, put it in his own way. On the subject of European development aid, he told the Select Committee on Science and Technology:
	"as I think everybody knows, it has not been terribly effective in the past."
	Coming from the right hon. Gentleman, and knowing the terms that he tends to use, that is even more damning than the conclusion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood.
	Time and again, reform has been promised. We were promised it in the treaty, and we have to see that reform against the criterion in my hon. Friend's amendment. We have heard time and again—I think that I heard shades of it in the speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) when he summed up on behalf of the Government—the classic bureaucrat's defence: "Things have not been as they should, but we are putting them right."
	The Select Committee on International Development put its finger on some of the long-standing problems in European Union policy when it reviewed the effectiveness of the promised reforms in 2002. It said:
	"We remain concerned by the lack of transparency as to which funds are intended for poverty reduction, the continuing division of responsibilities between DG Development and DG External Relations, and the questionable ability of the Commission to staff its Delegations adequately and appropriately."
	To be fair to those involved in the European Union's aid effort, lack of transparency and ineffective bureaucracy are hardly unique characteristics of the European Union, but they are important when we debate whether more and more policy making in aid will fall within the remit of central European institutions rather than that of individual member states.
	In 2003, the International Development Committee said that it was waiting to see whether European Union reforms would result in a greater focus on poverty reduction, but it has been and remains the case that too little of the EU's international development effort is devoted to the poorest countries in the world. For the purposes of the amendment, we need to ask whether so much EU aid will continue to go to countries in eastern and central Europe and the Mediterranean region—countries that may be less developed than we and other western European nations are, but hardly count among the poorest in the world.
	Far too little EU aid goes to the least developed countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. That is the situation that we confront now, and we must see the amendments in that context. If my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rayleigh is right in his analysis of the impact of the high representative, the EU's new foreign policy-making institutions and its new drift towards integrated EU supranational control over foreign policy, the situation could get even worse—but my goodness me, we have grounds enough for concern already.
	Less than half the European Union's aid goes to the least developed countries and low-income countries. Less than 40 per cent. of aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa. I heard the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development about how matters had improved since 2002, but since 2003, the proportion of EU aid going to sub-Saharan Africa has fallen. I quote figures very helpfully supplied to me by the House of Commons Library, which tells me that the amount of EU aid going to sub-Saharan Africa as a proportion of the EU's overall budget has fallen from 38.9 per cent. in 2003 to 35.6 per cent. today. This debate is taking place against the background of a falling proportion of EU aid to sub-Saharan Africa.
	When one considers the amount of aid being given to individual countries, the situation is even starker. In support of his amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh rightly highlighted the case of Mediterranean and eastern European countries; I think that he mentioned Turkey, Morocco and Serbia in his list of the top 10 recipients of EU aid. In fact, according to the note helpfully supplied to me by the Library, those countries are the top three. Turkey receives the most aid, Morocco the next most and Serbia the third most.
	In terms of aid received per capita, the situation is starker still. According to the Library's calculations, Serbia receives about 60 times more aid per capita than Bangladesh, and a total of three times more in overall aid budget. I may be wrong, but I imagine that when those figures on the distribution of EU aid were produced, Kosovo was counted as part of Serbia. We can therefore read them in the context of European Union policy towards Kosovo and Serbia. That might be worthy on its own account. It might be intended to achieve just results, self-determination and a peaceful solution to the long-standing problems in the Balkans; there might be other issues as well. It is a complicated part of the world, and I do not propose to go into detail during this debate about all the merits of those issues, but the point of the amendment is undoubtedly that aid is a focal point for EU foreign and security policy. It appears from the statistics that the aid disbursed by the European Union is driven by the EU's common foreign and security policy objectives. It certainly cannot be driven by the relative poverty of Serbia or Kosovo, for instance, when compared with the very poorest countries, including Bangladesh.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He makes a further point in support of my own, as the European Union's skewed aid policy is disguised within the subdivision of budgets. It is nevertheless money being spent, and it is counted as European Union aid. It may be divided up into different budgets, but as far as taxpayers and people interested in aid in this country are concerned, a very large sum of EU aid is being spent in countries that are relatively less poor, and a much greater amount is being spent in countries such as Serbia, Morocco and Lebanon. The European Union has political and security concerns about those countries, but they are not among the poorest nations in the world. The Department for International Development has set a target for 90 per cent. of its bilateral aid to go to the poorest countries—but the same imperative does not seem to govern European Union aid. Will the Minister for Europe give his estimate of how much of what the Government regard to be aid from EU institutions goes to low-income countries?
	The expert analysis given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in the earlier debate on the motion about the Lisbon treaty was hardly comforting for the Government on that point. My hon. Friend spoke from his own particular perspective, but he said that he did not regard the treaty as a great step forward. He said that we were talking about a total non-debate that added to the democratic deficit. We have often heard it said that the European Union has comparative advantages because of its size and other factors, but the evidence of the lack of poverty focus, ineffective bureaucracy, lack of transparency, slow delivery and possible fraud seems to suggest that it does not perform as well as others in the field, such as nation states. To all those problems may now be added that caused by the role played by the European Union's reinforced common foreign and security policy. The issues that my hon. Friend raised were important.
	The situation is dominated by long-standing problems that have riddled the European Union's whole aid history. We need to be extremely careful that we do not make an unsatisfactory situation worse by handing over more influence and authority to the centralised European Union foreign policy institutions that the treaty introduces; my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh was right to mention those issues. I do not draw the reassurance that I would like from the Government's position on the issue, although I heard what the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West said.

Rob Marris: I shall refer to the consolidated texts of the EU treaties as amended by the treaty of Lisbon, because I always think that it is useful to know what the wording would be if the European Union reform treaty—the Lisbon treaty—were agreed by the 27 member states, unamended. I start with article 3 of the treaty on the function of the European Union, which is on page 38 of the consolidated texts. Article 3, paragraph 1 is about common fisheries policy, the customs union and so on, but I would like to make a point about competence, which is mentioned in paragraph 2, although I stand to be corrected by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Paragraph 2 says:
	"The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope."
	My reading of the provision—the hon. Member for Rayleigh, who moved the amendment, may read it differently and, if so, I would very much like him to point it out to me—is that taken in totality, article 3, particularly paragraph 2, does not lead to exclusive competence for the EU in international development matters. That is my starting point. If I have misunderstood the provision, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in his usual helpful way, will correct me. If I am right, however, that somewhat detracts from his arguments about competence.
	Amendment No. 268, which deals with the special committee, refers to article 207 on page 133 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. I do not wish to read out the whole article, so I shall simplify it for the Committee. It provides for a special committee to be set up that, in consultation with the Commission—the special committee having been appointed by the Council to assist the Commission—can start negotiations and so on. The free-standing special committee cannot go off on a frolic on its own, as it is set up by the Commission and is responsible to it. Understandable concerns have been expressed about whether the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy would hijack the international aid agenda, but that matter is dealt with in paragraph 3 of article 218, which appears on page 139 of the consolidated text. I will not read out the whole thing—just what I think is relevant. If Members think that I am quoting selectively, doubtless they will let me know.

Rob Marris: That exemplifies the hon. Gentleman's generosity, because I was accused of selective quoting in the last EU debate—I cannot remember whether it was in the debate on the amendments on in the thematic debate—and, in a sense, that accusation was correct, because I did not read out a sub-clause that concluded the sentence. When I did so, it threw up a series of questions, which have been raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), about the commonalty of foreign policy and so on.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend just mentioned the Government side. Is he aware that in a recent review on the effectiveness of the EU, the Department for International Development itself said that
	"The UK would like to see a greater focus on low income countries for spending from the EC Budget."
	My hon. Friend may not be aware that I was a member of the Labour-chaired Science and Technology Committee, whose 13th report of Session 2003-04, on the use of science in UK international development policy, states in conclusion 11:
	"It is not acceptable that 25 per cent. of DFID's funds have been potentially allocated to development programmes that are widely perceived to have been of dubious effectiveness...DFID's past failure to monitor its multilateral"—

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend's intervention explains our dilemma. I do not blame the Government or Ministers, because I know that they are absolutely furious about how the European Union behaves on aid. The Government clearly do not have any influence in Europe; if they really were at the heart of Europe and if the European Union really did improve aid, the least developed countries would not complain. It seems to me that a protectionist ring is built around the European Union, which does not care much about people who live a long way from European borders. We spend £10 billion a year of taxpayers' money on the European Union. I am sure that if we directly gave away a small proportion of that, it would be more useful and effective and create a better living for people.
	I turn back to amendment No. 245. I have not heard any Government Member say that it is a horrible wrecking device designed to destroy the Lisbon treaty, as they normally do. They have been very quiet. The amendment is so mild that I assume that, when the time comes, the Government will see the wisdom of its ways and accept it. Notes have been whizzing back and forwards and Members have obviously touched on things of which the Government were not aware.
	This is an opportunity for the Government to accept a very mild amendment—the sort of thing that would be seen to improve the Bill if we were having a proper Committee debate that was going straight through, with none of this four-hour nonsense beforehand. I think it was the Lord Chancellor who said that he has never seen a Bill that has gone through Committee and has not come out much improved. The Government seem to be saying, "We are against any reasonable amendment because you're trying to wreck the Bill." There is something seriously wrong with our Government if they do not want to take on board reasoned arguments on how to improve things to help the less developed countries. If all they are concerned about is getting this through so that they win Brownie points with our European Union colleagues, that is an absolute disgrace.
	I had the pleasure, until I was thrown off, of serving on the Trade and Industry Committee—

Peter Bone: I am sorry; I did walk out earlier on. I was very cross. I have laid down in a darkened room, and I am back here feeling a lot better, thank you.
	The Committee was looking into relations with India and talking about the Doha round and the complete blocking by the European Union, which would not allow market access in order to protect French farmers. As a result, people in Bangladesh and other parts of the world were losing out. I said to a very senior business man from India, "What is the best thing that could be done to improve trade and relieve poverty in the sub-continent?" He said straight away, with no hesitation or prompting, "The best thing would be to pull out of the European Union." That is the problem. Most people outside the EU think that the development aid budget has been a complete failure and believe that the Government's influence at the heart of Europe is absolutely zilch. I do not see how this Bill will improve the situation; in fact, it will make it worse.

Hugh Bayley: It is a special irony to hear so many Conservative Members getting to their feet to express the view that development policy might be somehow hijacked if it came under the control of the foreign affairs wing of the European Union. I recall the time more than 10 years ago when their party were in Government and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was a Minister. At that time, the Overseas Development Administration, the British development wing, was part of the Foreign Office and it required a Labour Government to separate it in order to give development policy the independence that Conservative Members are now so staunchly defending.
	In anticipation that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) will get to his feet again when he has heard the Minister's response to his questions on behalf of BOND and other lobbyists, may I ask him whether his party, if it were ever to form a Government again, would commit to the retention of an international development Department separate from the Foreign Office? He has argued that it is a failing of the treaty that the European Union will subsume development policy within its common foreign and security policy. Will he give a commitment that his party would not do the same in the UK, were it to form a Government?
	It is also a great irony to hear Conservative Members complain that one of EU's policy failures is that it spends relatively little aid in the least developed countries. In the debate earlier this evening, I cited figures that showed that during the last Parliament when a Conservative Government were in power, not only did the proportion of our national wealth given in aid contributions fall, but the proportion of British aid given to the least developed countries fell sharply. The Conservatives have changed their policy, and I warmly welcome that. We should be particularly pleased that after 10 years of a Labour Government, the Conservative party has seen that it made mistakes in the past, and is arguing that such mistakes should not be repeated by the EU. I hope that it will apply the same strictures to the Government.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will respond to a second point. His amendment is grouped with amendment No. 272, proposed by Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, who I believe could still—

Shailesh Vara: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that powerful point, which endorses my point that it is vital to have a separate commissioner.

James Clappison: We have had the argument previously and I do not want to go too far down that road, but, if my hon. Friend examines the treaty, he will note incremental movements throughout it, including the extension of qualified majority voting beyond that which exists today, in favour of a common European foreign and security policy. Does he share my wish for the Minister to set out some concrete objectives, which would perhaps put our minds at rest at least a little in the context of the amendment?

Shailesh Vara: I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that the Minister took those points on board.
	Let me revert to the possibility that the European high commissioner would have charge of the aid budget. Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned the ever-increasing centralisation of decision making, with a few people at the top having ever- larger empires, for want of a better word, over which they would have exclusive control. We have noted that for several years the European budget has not been signed off, yet greater centralisation of funds will lead to the inevitable prospect of those funds, ever approaching the pinnacle, not being subject to as much accountability as we would like—in other words, the money will not go specifically to the people for whom it is intended It is therefore important that there should be a specific European commissioner in charge who can be held responsible for the money and can try to follow where it goes—to which countries, to which projects and to which people.
	We are discussing this important issue in the comfort of the Palace of Westminster. Many in the Chamber have had their evening meal and others know full well that they will soon be able to have theirs. However, I am reminded of the occasion on which, as the recipient of a fellowship from the Norfolk charitable trust, an organisation run by Tom Harrison and his daughter Deborah Harrison, I visited Ethiopia to see the starving for myself. I will never forget the occasion when— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members may well jest about the poverty and the dying in Ethiopia, but I assure them that their criticisms of our compassion are highlighted by the humour that they find in my comments about the dying and the starving in Ethiopia. I will never forget the occasion on which I went to a feeding centre, where hundreds of people were squatting, waiting for a bag of grain, a pot of oil and a little bit of salt, which was to last them for the next month.
	This debate is about those people. It is about their next meal. We must recognise that this is not just another issue. We as politicians have a responsibility, in a global world, to our global brethren. It is therefore vital that where there is aid money, it is properly targeted and properly dealt with, and that there is proper accountability. By accepting the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh has moved, we will ensure that our duty towards the starving of the world will be that much better fulfilled. If we do not accept the amendment, I am afraid that we as politicians do an injustice to all our rhetoric and an injustice to all the people who look to us for their next meal.
	To conclude, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said that the Government had not yet said that our amendments were wrecking amendments, the Minister said that he had not had an opportunity to do so. The Minister is an honourable Minister and I have an enormous amount of respect for what he says and what he does. I therefore very much hope that his comments were made in jest, and that he will not stand at the Dispatch Box and try to rubbish the well-meaning amendments that we have tabled. I urge the House to put aside party politics and accept our amendments, which are for the greater good of mankind.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity once again to respond to a debate that has been interesting for the whole afternoon and evening. We have all had the opportunity at the start of Fairtrade fortnight to reflect on some of the big issues facing our country on a group of policies that so many of our constituents rightly feel so passionately about.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), as we often do, quite fairly. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who spoke in a style that is increasingly his trademark. He displayed his ability to find his way through a treaty and its text in a way that no European bureaucrat anywhere on the continent could do with such ease. I offer that as a compliment. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who has demonstrated such personal and political commitment to this issue over a number of years that is he rightly, fairly and genuinely admired on both sides of the Committee for his careful attention.
	We also heard, belatedly, from the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell). I was as surprised to hear him as I am sure he was surprised to be making the speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on his speech. We formerly served as Whips together and his old Whip's tendencies, in helping us to get us to this hour, are still very much in evidence. The hon. Gentleman made, I think at relatively short notice, a well-informed speech about the amendments before us.
	I think that we started this afternoon's debate with a contribution from the Secretary of State for International Development, who made a point relevant to the amendments. We heard about my right hon. Friend's world tour across many of the regions and countries that we have spoken about. He is, of course, a former Minister for Europe, and I am sure that he is as disappointed as I am that he is not standing here at the Dispatch Box this evening as we reach the halfway point in our Committee deliberations on the Bill.  [Interruption.] Yes, I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that we are only halfway through our Committee process. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) says that the best is yet to come, so I thank him in anticipation of what I am about to say. By his own admission, the hon. Gentleman was a bit frustrated or angry earlier today, and he led a one-man walk-out—he was the walk-out. On his own admission, he lay down in a dark room. By all accounts, however, despite our disagreements, he retains a bright sense of humour and a sharp attention to much of the detail of the treaty. We look at the same evidence, the same arguments and the same history and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Nevertheless, he does so with great consideration and honour. We simply disagree over the conclusions and will continue to do so.
	As to the Opposition Front Benchers, let me deal first with the hon. Member for Rayleigh. As regular attenders in the Chamber will be aware, even when we disagree over amendments, the hon. Gentleman customarily argues for them in a coherent way. I will go on to explain why we disagree with amendment No. 245 in particular, but there are even greater arguments about some of the other amendments in the group.
	In a relatively short speech, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who made his debut in today's debates as the Liberal Democrats' international development spokesman, got to the point immediately, identifying the weakness in the Conservative amendments. They seek to undermine the greater co-operation for which both my party and his party share a great enthusiasm.
	Amendments Nos. 245, 247 and 272 aim to exclude provisions that could increase the influence of the common foreign and security policy on international aid. The principles of the Union's external action are set out in article 2(24) of the Lisbon treaty, which refers to
	"democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law."
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development mentioned that in the earlier debate.
	It is vital for there to be coherence throughout the EU's external action. We would not want the EC development assistance plans in countries such as Zimbabwe or Fiji not to take account of the position on human rights and democracy. The provisions in the treaty do not mean that development will be secondary to foreign policy, as I shall seek to explain. They do not represent a return to the days of aid as an instrument of foreign policy. In fact, increased coherence as set out in the treaty will ensure that development and humanitarian aid form a key part of a coherent and effective external policy.
	It is vital for the Union's external action to be coherent and consistent. That is why the provisions that I have mentioned were included in the treaty. Other provisions have the same objective. For instance, article 2(161) states that the Union must
	"take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries."
	That requirement has existed since the Maastricht treaty.
	Let me deal with some of the wider points that have been made about EU efforts on international development and aid. Owing to either a misreading of the evidence or a deliberate misunderstanding of it, we have witnessed a parody of the EU's efforts in recent years. I have not and never will argue at the Dispatch Box that everything Europe does is anywhere near perfect—there is no organisation in the world that could not continue to improve—but to argue, as some have, that the EU has, in principle and in practice, let down the world's poorest people is, in my view, a parody of the reality.
	Let us look at some specific examples. In Sudan, €100 million of humanitarian aid has put the country firmly at the top of the Commission's humanitarian agenda. In northern Uganda, 2 million internally displaced people were living in poorly managed camps without minimum basic services or adequate protection, and with recurrent cholera outbreaks. The Commission provided €19 million to improve conditions in the camps and help people to return home. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Commission's humanitarian activities focused on the most vulnerable, especially women and children. In Liberia, 14 years of civil war had a devastating effect on civilians. Half the population was undernourished in 2006, but there has been significant European investment. In Niger, more than 680,000 children were treated for acute malnutrition. As for Angola, there has been considerable investment in that war-torn country.
	I do not claim that everything that Europe has done and continues to do has resolved all the great challenges that face the world's poor. Let me say this in response to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire—

Jim Murphy: I apologise. Following a tour of the world's nations, I should have been able to distinguish between North-East and North-West Cambridgeshire. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment. We could debate the recent history of the party he supports, such as its dramatic—by choice—political failure of the world's poorest when it cut the aid budget, but I am willing to accept that he did not support that agenda at the time, and certainly that he does not support it this evening. There is no disagreement that the EU has to do more, and indeed, the United Kingdom bilaterally can continue to do more, but the fact is that 90 per cent. of the European development fund does go to the poorest nations. In 2006, £32 billion of aid went to help some 18 million people in more than 160 countries. It has to be acknowledged that not all the money has gone to the poorest nations, but a strong case can be made that while there is rightly a focus on the poorest nations in the world it is also right to concentrate on the poorest communities in some of the middle-income nations, and that they are also entitled to the support of the EU and the UK.
	More widely, it is right that candidate countries of the EU benefit from EU support, such as aid support and aid investment. That is why the European neighbourhood policy is important. Earlier this afternoon, I had to pop out of the debate to meet the deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, a country that received £160 million in 2006 in total EC aid; it also received almost £6 million in UK bilateral aid, which is administered through the Department for International Development. It is important that we continue to invest in—to use the dreadful diplomatic-speak—Europe's "near-abroad", which are those countries to the east and south of Europe's borders. We must continue to invest in those countries, rather than only in the poorest countries in the world. We wish to see stability and continuing democratic process.

Jim Murphy: We must continue to try to find ways to get money to individuals in the poorest nations and to the poorest communities in some of the middle-income nations. I am not seeking to argue that everything Europe has done, is doing or will do is precise and perfect. That is why there must be continued reform. However, I am arguing that it is in our national and international interests that there continues to be investment in, for example, Serbia, to encourage democracy and the rule of law there, and that we encourage economic progress, open markets and human rights in, for example, Kosovo.
	Let me turn to the text of the treaty and the concern of the hon. Member for Rayleigh about the effect the potential loss of an EU Development Commissioner could have on EU efforts in international development. Although I have yet to hear it said specifically thus far in any of our days of deliberations on the treaty, I think that it is common ground that a reduction in the number of commissioners is a good thing. Thus far, in six days of debate both in Committee and on Second Reading, we have not heard from those on the Conservative Benches of one thing that they welcome in the treaty. I know that Conservative Members' worry is that if they welcome a millimetre of it, they will be slammed by the UK Independence party and other Europhobes.  [Interruption.] Instead of chortling, I shall give the hon. Member for Rayleigh the opportunity to welcome some parts of the treaty.

Jim Murphy: Again, the hon. Gentleman welcomes nothing in this treaty, be it on international development or foreign policy. I remind the House that the Conservatives are alone, because they are the only Opposition party in Europe and the only conservative party in Europe to oppose the treaty's every sentence. He opposes every aspect of the treaty.
	The number of Commissioners will be reduced from 27, because there are not 27 full-time jobs to do in the European Commission and thus there is no justification for having 27 separate bureaucracies. In addition, as we welcome Turkey and others into the European Union in future, the number of Commissioners would continue to be a difficulty if it was not addressed. More importantly, the treaty does not make provisions on which Commissioners and portfolios will remain—there is no specific alignment as to which Commissioner portfolios would continue on a full-time basis. Nothing has been decided on the portfolios or roles carried out by individual Commissioners or by the collection of Commissioners.
	Commissioners come and go, and much is dependent on the power and personality of Commissioners, but the treaty text is what is important and unavoidable, and, for the first time, it legally enshrines humanitarian aid. That aid should be offered and provided in line with three principles—impartiality, neutrality and non-discrimination—which have been established by the Red Cross.
	Let us consider some different aspects of the treaty text. Article 21(d) on page 18 states that the Union should try to
	"foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries".
	Article 21(e) states that it should try to encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy
	", including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade".
	Paragraph 5 of article 3 on page 5 states clearly, for the first time:
	"In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and contribute to the protection if its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty".
	The specific roles of individual Commissioners will continue to evolve. There is no ideological disagreement about that between the left, right and centre across the European Union. As we move from 27 to 18 Commissioners, there will of course be a need for some changes in portfolios. What is beyond doubt is the fact that the treaty text for the first time carries within it an absolute guarantee about the primacy and importance of the eradication of poverty.
	I think that I am being encouraged to allow the hon. Member for Rayleigh the opportunity for a couple of moments' response. However, I should say that amendment No. 246 would exclude the Lisbon treaty provision that states that the Union and the member states share competence in the areas of development co-operation and humanitarian aid, but that any Union action in those fields does not result in the member states being unable to act—it is very clear as to the extension of the shared competence. Member states are still entitled to act. Let me remind the House that European Community action in the field of development co-operation was formalised in the Maastricht treaty. Along with humanitarian aid, it has, in practice, been an important part of the Community's external action since its foundation.
	The proliferation of donors and the exponential growth of projects are real problems for many developing countries, and in particular their Governments. Those Governments have limited financial and administrative resources, yet they are asked to work with more and more donors, each of which has its own systems of reporting and auditing. Governments are asked to participate in reviews of dozens, if not hundreds, of projects, in each sector—for example, the OECD counted no fewer than 560 social infrastructure projects in Mozambique alone in 2002. The treaty seeks to rationalise that process so that instead of countries such as Mozambique struggling under the weight of well-intentioned initiatives coming from myriad nation states across the globe, there is greater coherence, at least within the European Union's 27 member states. No one could sensibly argue that Mozambique and her Government should expect to be supported in a way that puts such an enormous burden on the country and her people. That is the purpose behind the initiatives in the treaty. All of this argues for closer co-operation between donors and a shared competence in development co-operation, as the Liberal Democrats have also said this evening.
	I want to give the hon. Member for Rayleigh the opportunity to respond, so I turn finally to the question asked by the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). The dry, legalistic answer to his entirely fair question is that for the UK to remove the specific articles of the treaty as required by the amendment would put us in a position whereby we could not fully ratify the treaty. That is the dry, legalistic and factual position, and I hope he is reassured on that point. More widely, there is determination to ensure that the European Union is more effective in the future—to harness the political determination of all 27 Governments to deliver the things we all believe in.

Rob Marris: Let me make three points. If the version of the consolidated treaties that the hon. Gentleman is brandishing is the same as the one as I have in my hand, it is dated 20 November 2006, so it is completely out of date. Secondly, I stressed the word "consistency" in the quote that he cited, not the word "ensure". Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman rightly said that I am occasionally known for being legalistic. May I suggest that he does some research on the arcane way in which the European Union uses the word "shall"? I have done such research, and on many occasions in European Union treaties, shall means not "must", but "has the power to". Bizarre as that is, it is the legalistic interpretation of the word, and the hon. Gentleman, as the shadow Minister for Europe, really ought to know that.

Mark Francois: I shall do my best to cover the key points in the five minutes that I have. The amendment would strike out of the treaty moves towards majority voting on the provision of urgent financial assistance. By doing so, it would remove a damaging ambiguity from the treaty, as well as keeping the Government to their policy of only a few years ago, when the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) sought to delete the same provision from the original EU constitution. The Government's view as expressed by him, to quote their argument for the amendment, was as follows:
	"The intention appears to be to move to QMV for macro-financial assistance, but this article confuses the issue as it is not clear whether it refers to the macro-financial assistance or not. Macro-financial assistance has been agreed urgently when required."
	However, it appears that the Government now enthusiastically support majority voting on that matter, although not much else relating directly to it has changed in essence. The relevant treaty provision states:
	"When the situation in a third country requires urgent financial assistance from the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions on a proposal from the Commission."
	As that proposal remains somewhat ambiguous, I should have liked time to press the Minister for an explanation of the circumstances in which he believes the power will pertain.
	I shall mention our two other amendments briefly. Amendment No. 249 would strike out moves towards majority voting on humanitarian aid. It would strike out a controversial measure that opens up the possibility of the EU Foreign Minister pursuing EU foreign policy under another guise. For instance, there could be a situation in which aid to a foreign Government was unacceptable to the UK Government and would bring with it foreign policy commitments with which we were uncomfortable.
	Let us take one potential example: under the treaty, it would be possible for a qualified majority of EU states to think it right to provide humanitarian aid to the Hamas Administration in Gaza. The United Kingdom might oppose that aid, yet could still be outvoted under QMV. Giving up a veto in that area could force us into being party to a course of action that we find morally repugnant, and bind us to handing over British taxpayers' money for a cause whose values we firmly oppose. It would be extremely foolish of Ministers to claim that such a situation would never arise. The treaty provision could have wide-ranging implications for our foreign policy, and there should be no place for it.
	Amendment No. 250 would strike out the provision in the Lisbon treaty that allows the European Union to set up a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps. It is curious that the provision is still in the treaty, given that when the right hon. Member for Neath was negotiating at the constitutional convention he said:
	"The idea of establishing a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps should have no place within the EU's humanitarian action".
	That was the Government's argument. Incredibly, this is another example in which, despite their previous opposition, the Government are now telling us that they support an idea. The hon.—and gallant—Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) brought his experience of Afghanistan to bear on the argument when he suggested that what development companies primarily need is experienced technical professionals to help them. I tend to agree with his argument.
	Amendment No. 248 seeks to remove a harmful aspect of the treaty by removing provision for majority voting on urgent financial assistance. The right hon. Member for Neath explained that that measure was both unnecessary and ambiguous. If we had time, I would have asked the Minister for Europe to give more detail about possible circumstances. Amendment No. 249 seeks to remove provisions for majority voting on humanitarian aid in respect of areas where there could be conflict with our own independent foreign policy. I have given an example relating to Gaza. Amendment No. 250 would delete references to—
	 It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings in the Committee , The Chairman  left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Orders [28 January and this day].
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Willie Rennie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly alarmed to see that the Minister for Europe is replying to the debate. He has had a lot to do over the past few weeks, and I know that he has a very important race on Wednesday. I would not like him to do too much in advance of that race, considering that he beat me only by a smidgen two years ago. If you have any power to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you should advise him to go to his bed on Wednesday.
	On the issue of visas for Belarusian children, I would first like to tell the House a wee story about a boy called Vova who came to the United Kingdom a few years ago when he was 17 years old. Many of his friends had come here years before then, but doctors had not wanted him to travel because of the state of his health. He was not expected to make a full recovery, and he was painfully thin. He had a great holiday in the United Kingdom, and the following year he made a full recovery. He is now the father of a healthy little girl.
	Vova is one of many victims of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear explosion in April 1986. There are thousands of people like him across Belarus—people suffering from thyroid cancer, bone cancer, leukaemia and many other horrific conditions. In Belarus, in the summer, the dust causes radiation levels to rise, so a few weeks of fresh air and clean food in the United Kingdom are a great release for those children. The Belarusian doctors believe that it boosts the children's immune system for at least two years after the visit, and that it is vital for teenagers, who are often in their second or third bout of illness. Indeed, the death rate among teenagers is extremely high.
	There are 12 or so charities that organise holidays for Belarusian children and bring about 5,000 children every year to the UK for recuperative holidays. The children are chosen by the Minsk-based Children in Trouble charity, which is organised by the parents of children with cancer. The children stay with volunteers in the UK, and they have enjoyed fantastic holidays here for at least two decades. The charities have brought more than 55,000 children to this country since the visits began. They have an excellent, first-class reputation, and are run by brilliant people. The former British ambassador to Belarus, Brian Bennett, is a leading player, as is my constituent, Carol Dean, from North Queensferry. Victor Mizzi, Linda Walker and Olwyn Keogh were recently recognised by the Queen for their work for Belarusian children and received the MBE.
	All that excellent work, however, is under threat because of the manner of the introduction of biometric visas, which has been rushed, with little regard for the needs of the children, families and charities. I am appalled by the way in which they have been treated, and if urgent measures are not taken, their good work could be under threat. There is evidence that some charities are packing up, or thinking about doing so. If that is the case, it will be the children who lose out at the end of the day. The Minister will know that on 1 January this year biometric visas were introduced across the board. Finger scans and a digital photograph are required. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office website states:
	"The recording of this biometric data is a quick process, taking on average no more than two minutes. It will not lead to delays in issuing visas."
	It all sounds very simple, but that is far from the case. There are three main problems with the introduction of biometric visas. Since September last year, the children have been required to take a trip up to Minsk to receive their visa. For some of them, it is a 10-hour round trip of hundreds of miles on a bus. Those children, as I have explained, are often in a poor health, and a 10-hour round trip is not something I would advise them to undertake.
	There is a major expense, too, for the charities involved, which have to hire coaches to transport the children. The Italians and Germans organise more holidays than the UK for the children, and I should like to know from the Minister whether those countries have been consulted, and whether a joint effort has been undertaken with them to make sure that we can learn lessons from their measures, just as they can from ours. There seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach to the whole world, but there must be more than one way to demonstrate under the rules that
	"suitable arrangements have been made".
	I understand that mobile visa units may be in place by summer. Can the Minister tell us more about that, and whether they will be guaranteed to be in place, on time, without any delays? Volume, or the number of children, is an issue, too. As I have explained, 4,000 to 5,000 children travel here every year, but because they all travel in summer, they are more than likely to apply for visas at the same time, so there will be a rush for visas from spring until the summer, when they go on holiday. There have been reports of significant waits at the embassy in Minsk, so the two-minute wait time that was given is unrealistic, as it will be much longer. The charities fear that there will be a sudden rush and the system will not be able to cope. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that there will be no massive queues and no massive delays?
	The third issue concerns advance notice. The British embassy in Minsk told the charities:
	"UK legislation requires that, in issuing a visa to a child under 18, our Entry Clearance Officers must be satisfied that a sponsoring organisation . . . can demonstrate that suitable arrangements have been made for travel to, and reception and care in, the United Kingdom."
	Officials have interpreted that as meaning
	"To ensure full compliance with these rules we will now require all visa application forms to be filled out in full, including details of the host family and the address where the child will stay".
	To me, it is quite a leap from
	"can demonstrate that suitable arrangements have been made"
	to requiring full details of exactly where the child will stay in the United Kingdom and the host family's name. It seems to be quite a tight interpretation of the rules that have been set down.
	That will cause significant difficulties for the families, the charities and the children involved. I have already explained that these are sick children from a country that is quite far away, and that volunteer families host the children in the United Kingdom. That involves constant changes. Sometimes the children are sick and drop out; sometimes the families are no longer able to take the children. We need a system that is much more flexible and that allows last-minute notification of the children's destination.
	There is also a need to ensure proper bonding between the children and the host families, so the matching process is vital. Sometimes it is long and complex. When they apply for visas, the children might not know which families they will stay with in the United Kingdom. Flexibility is crucial. Instead of the host family name on the visa, perhaps the name of the organiser of the trip could be entered on the visa. Ultimately, they are responsible for the children when they are in the United Kingdom, and that would meet the requirement to demonstrate that all arrangements have been made, as specified in the rules. The interpretation of the rules has been excessive. All the families have been Criminal Records Bureau-checked, and the charities also vet the host families, so the triple lock seems unnecessary.
	I have explained the three issues—the distance travelled, the numbers involved and the advance notice required. The treatment of the charities has been appalling. Instead of respect and consideration for them, there is a strong whiff of suspicion about their motives. Anybody who questions the rules is viewed with suspicion, as though their only interest was in harming the children. The charities have gained a tremendous reputation over many years and have brought over 55,000 children to the United Kingdom.
	After several requests for a meeting last year to discuss the changes, a hurried meeting with UKvisas was finally organised in December. Not surprisingly, it was a hostile meeting, but at the end a formal response was promised, as well as a consultation document to be published in January. Despite the Minister promising in a letter to one of the charities that a formal response would be forthcoming, three months have passed and the charities have received no formal notification or outcome from that meeting. There seems to be a strangely aggressive "we know best" approach to the whole affair, and anyone who questions it is viewed with suspicion. The charities have a tremendous track record and should not be treated in such a manner.
	Such treatment is mild compared to the way in which the Chernobyl Children's Lifeline has been treated. Three years ago that charity took firm action to remove from the charity one of its CRB-checked hosts, about whom it had concerns. No action was taken by the authorities but three years later, without notice, visas for children who were about to travel to the United Kingdom were revoked, one and a half days before they were due to travel. The children's flights were booked, the host families were ready for the children, the kids' bags were packed and everybody was ready to go, but the holiday had to be cancelled as a consequence of the revoked visas. That cost the charity a considerable amount of time and money. After that, the visas were suspended for a period of weeks. UKvisas told the charity that Dorset police were carrying out an investigation into the charity following the actions of the individual whom I mentioned three years prior to the visas being revoked. However, Dorset police told it that that was not the case and that there was no such investigation. There were no interviews with the charity and there was no investigation.
	The offences carried out by the individual did not happen on the charity's watch; the charity was not responsible for them, yet it suffered the consequences of his actions. It was treated in a high-handed manner three years after the event took place. Given the work that the charity has done over many years with thousands of children, treating it in that manner one and a half days before the children were due to go on holiday was completely disrespectful.
	The final aspect of what I view as the disrespect towards the charities is the anonymous calls that have taken place recently. Hosts in the United Kingdom, and the families in Belarus and their schools, have been receiving anonymous calls seeking details of the children travelling to the United Kingdom. If they refuse to supply those details, there is a threat that the visit will be cancelled and the visas revoked. They receive no advance written notification of what we now understand are official phone calls and, not surprisingly, they consider them threatening and alarming. Those people have the right not to be treated in that way; they should be given more consideration.
	Chernobyl Children's Lifeline and all the other charities deserve an apology for how they have been treated. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was unable to attend tonight's debate, but he wanted me to know how important he views the work of the Belarusian charities for the Chernobyl children. He sent me a short e-mail, which states:
	"There is little doubt in my mind that the introduction of biometric visas under the proposed scheme will give the charity a continuing and considerable cost overhead. This would have the effect of curtailing the work of the charity with fewer children from Belarus enjoying the benefits of recuperative holidays in the UK."
	The hon. Gentleman has my full support, and I have his.
	I have four recommendations for the way forward. First, until a proper working system is in place, biometric visas for children from Belarus should be suspended. We need to work with the charities and our EU partners to develop a system that can be piloted in a particular region so that we know that it works and can cope with the volume and with having mobile units throughout the country. We need to suspend the current system so that none of the holidays this summer is threatened.
	The second issue is about the named representative, and whether that could be the host family in the United Kingdom, and their address, or the organiser from the charity. In my firm view, the charities have proven themselves to be appropriate and responsible and should have their names on the visas. They have the child protection systems to cope with that.
	Thirdly, we should consider how the United States deals with such visas; it requires visas only for over-14-year-olds from Belarus. We should consider adopting such a system. Finally, we should issue an apology to the Chernobyl children's charities for how they have been treated and we should consider some form of compensation for the cancelled Chernobyl Children's Lifeline holidays and the extra costs involved for travelling to Minsk for the visas.
	I should like to read a short statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. It says:
	"The UK continues to have serious concerns about the lack of respect for human rights in Belarus. Since the flawed presidential elections, the Belarusian regime has continued to crack down on the opposition and increasingly to stifle any dissent. We deplore this situation and the unjustified actions taken to prevent demonstrators, human rights campaigners, opposition leaders and independent trade unionists from exercising their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression."
	The Chernobyl children's charities do a fantastic job, reaching out to thousands of families in Belarus, offering them the hand of friendship, and giving them relief from their regime and their debilitating environment, as well as giving them a taste of our democracy. If we believe that those are good actions, we should be offering them encouragement and support, not hindrance.

Jim Murphy: As part of my reflection on this evening's debate, I shall look into the specific, fair points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
	I know that time is against us, and so may I tell the hon. Gentleman that the whole House thanks him for his work and for initiating the debate in the manner in which he has done so? I know that he will have the gratitude of the charities, which is more important than the thanks of the House. More important still, he will have the gratitude of many of the children who have benefited so much over recent decades from the opportunity to come to the United Kingdom.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.